The madness of LibDem members' preference for Brown

Sky News has a poll of LibDem members and - as noted yesterday evening within this post - it shows a modest lead for Nick Clegg among the half to have already voted.  These findings from the poll interested me most...

"Nearly half of members polled (49%) prefer Gordon Brown as Prime Minister than David Cameron (18%) and would prefer to side with Labour rather than the Conservatives in the event of a ‘hung parliament’. 44% would oppose a coalition with the Tories under any circumstances, while only 26% would oppose a similar deal with Labour."

Even with Labour exposed as incompetent, sleazy and disunited, more than twice as many LibDems prefer Brown to Cameron.  Staggering.

We need to beat this party.  The thought of sharing power with them - and the enormous compromises that that would require - appals me.

PS I loved the "Coming Up: Madness" caption that appeared below Chris Huhne when he was interviewed by Adam Boulton a little earlier...

Comments

[Tony Makara]

The Liberals as ever are fickle and cannot be trusted. We had Charles Kennedy saying he would never prop up a Labour government, then Ming indicating he would work with Labour in the event of a hung parliament. Just where do they stand on anything? How anyone can prefer Brown to Cameron is amazing. Do the Liberals really think they could broker a deal with an automaton like Brown? If so their naivety is staggering.

[Paul D]

This is a very, very useful poll for us and should become the centrepiece of all our General Election literature i.e. a vote for the LibDems WILL prop up Labour and that the Conservatives are the only party that will offer change and get rid of this shower

Let's take this gift and use it to the full

[HF]

How can this site help defeat Lib Dems?

What about a series of articles focused on specific ideas.

1. Choosing the best candidate (Must be local, selected early...). Someone must have researched the gains a local candidate makes vs one parachuted in?

2. Leaflets, every area a minimum of 6 a year, 12 leaflets in an election year.

etc etc

[Sally Roberts]

Not surprising at all! Despite what they show as their public face (or ONE of their public faces...!) most Lib Dems are very left wing - more left wing than many Labour supporters - and would rather stick pins in their eyes than be seen to support the Conservatives in any way whatsoever!

[James]

A minimum of 6 leaflets a year?

12 in an election year?

Wow - you must have an army of deliverers!! We struggle to get out a fraction of that.

Also, I can't help thinking that most voters would consider that too much of a good thing. At what point do so many leaflets from a political party become a nuisance?

[David]

It's not unsurprising. The LibDem membership consists of a significant number of ex-SDP who in a forced choice would most naturally support Labour.

[HF]

James, these are the types of things required to defeat Lib Dems.

Voters complain about not hearing from parties. The Lib Dems have been delivering volumes like this for years in the areas that they win in.

[HF]

We should not be surprised at the way their members favour Brown.

The bulk of their members joined in a time of the 80s and 90s where all non-Conservatives were anti-Tory.

Even today there are more posts anti-Tory on LD blogs than posts that are anti-Labour. Despite the fact that Labour are in Govt.

[Margaret on the Guillotine]

Does not the fact that Lib Dems find this "incompetent, sleazy and disunited" Government twice as preferable to the Tories tell us that we are suffering for our past introversion and failure to address the concerns of those outside our own grassroots?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Like what Margeret?

[Sam R]

As I keep saying, that lot simply cannot be trusted. I believe:-
(i) they would enter into coalition with Bolsheviks if they thought thereby they would get a little perk of power. Remember Paddy Pantsdown?
(ii) in many ways they are now the more socialist of the two. Of course, what they say in the shire counties is so very different to what they promise the gullible in the inner city constituencies;
(iii) if they had their way we would by now be without the pound and signed up to the Euro-constitution/treaty;
(iv) just look at some of the daft proposals thay have thought up over the past few years.

A collection of the wonky, the sad and the disillusioned. Know thine enemy!

[Graeme Archer]

What's so delicious about this poll is that I doubt it would be replicated amongst that subset of their MPs who are vaguely intelligent/sensible eg Vince Cable. Nearly half of the LibDem grassroots are obviously replicants of Simon Hughes (shudder). This explains why their leadership is incapable of turning them into an actual liberal Liberal party - the membership are anything but. Hence they get nowhere because, unless they elect a leader with the guts to overrule his members (not an option from either of the current candidates), they will for ever lack a coherent narrative. Let them side with Brown - that message will go down ever so well in all those Tory/LibDem marginals in the south.

[HF]

One of the consequences of the Lib/Lab pact in the 90s was that a lot of socialists ending up joining the LDs particularly in the South.

In these areas Labour has no hope of recovering and the Lib Dems are saddled with activists that would make Respect look right wing.

[Edison Smith]

At the next GE we should just post out the same poster the Scottish Tories produced in Scotland - a colour chart of 'yellow' paint.

Under a strong shade of red was the caption 'Lib Dem Yellow'.

The caption below read - Vote Lib Dem, Get Labour.

Enough said.

[Comstock]

Even with Labour exposed as incompetent, sleazy and disunited, more than twice as many LibDems prefer Brown to Cameron.

Perhaps they prefer an "incompetent, sleazy and disunited" Labour government to the Conservatives. If your views are left of centre, any kind of left of centre government is a far lesser evil than the 'best' right wing one.

A sentiment you'll not be amazed to hear I share.

[Edison Smith]

All this is academic anyway. Ignore the Lib Dems. Concentrate on getting a positive, fresh Conservative message out hard enough and we won't need any lugubrious alliances come June 2009, least of all with a shoddy, tin pot operation like the Liberals.

If Orange Bookists like Laws or Clegg would rather cosy up to Stalinist big government and nanny statism whilst turning their backs on their own true beliefs, that is their look out.

[Michael Davidson]

I don't know why you find this surprising - in many ways the LibDems are more left-wing than Labour. Of course they will side with Labour over us.

[Roger Evans]

In London elections a great many Lib Dems vote for Livingstone as their first choice, so this poll only confirms what we already know in the capital - they prefer left wing politicians.

[bluepatriot]

Love the screen capture!

[Paul D]

Edison - the election won't be earlier than May 2010

[Comstock]

Edison - the election won't be earlier than May 2010

I think that would be foolish. Major staying on for an extra year proberbly boosted Blair's original majority by another 30 or 40, by allowing peoples resentment to build up.

If an election is looking unwinnable by May 2009 Brown should take the hit and go to the country anyway, leaving the door open for Labour getting back in (presumably with a new leader) in 2013.

[David Sergeant]

"Does not the fact that Lib Dems find this "incompetent, sleazy and disunited" Government twice as preferable to the Tories tell us that we are suffering for our past introversion and failure to address the concerns of those outside our own grassroots?"

Posted by: Margaret on the Guillotine | December 02, 2007 at 14:14

Perhaps Margaret is referring to the party image outside our grassroots.

Black Wednesday was a disaster and it didn't creat the basis for Brown's wonderfull continuous growth. The Tories cut the public services to fund tax cuts for the rich. The Tories massively increased unemployment.

Vitually no attempt has been made by the party to address these myths so they represent concerns to people outside our own grassroots.

Sorry, editor to keep saying this but it doesn't matter what mess Labour get in or what Cammeron says people have these "facts" at the back of their mind.

[Old Hack]

I suspect if you asked the Lib Dems who they would prefer out of Bush or Bin-Laden most would want Bin-Laden.

Have we learned yet whether the Greens will switch their system of leadership from two principal speakers to one leader?

A charismatic and high profile Green Leader could be big trouble for the Lib Dems.

[Paul 'The Machine' Seery]

[Quote="Old Hack"]A charismatic and high profile Green Leader could be big trouble for the Lib Dems.[/Quote]

Especially in places like Norwich, where the Green presence there is particulary strong.

[Comstock]

"Have we learned yet whether the Greens will switch their system of leadership from two principal speakers to one leader?"

Yes, they are going to, OH. There was a substantial majority in favour in the referendum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7119424.stm

[Paul D]

Cornstock - what one SHOULD do, and what one in power DOES are often two different things. If Brown loses a GE, his political career is finished, ergo I think his (and others on the Labour front benches') vanity will result in him hanging on to power until the last possible second, regardless of what is in the best long-term interests of the Labour party

[Comstock]

Paul D, I'm not disagreeing with a word you are saying........

If he *does* hang on for an extra year, lets hope he at least uses this period to do some good, because it could be the last year of Labour government for some time.

It may even be the 20s before Labour are in power again if they hang on and lose heavily in 2010.

[snegchui]

I agree fully with David Sergeant's comments. There are perceptions, feelings and myths which are "facts" in the minds of many who are not sympathetic to the Tories. They can admit Labour failings but the immediate response is the Tories were worse. Bar the brown envelopes and Major's weakness in not immediately sacking the Tory members implicated in it, and Archer's perjury the Tories are nowhere near the Labour record of 3 card trickery. Yet to many the Tory private infidelities are worse than the Labour public money scams. And to finish off "He (Gordon Brown)and John Smith urged Neil Kinnock to abandon Labour's idea of taking the country out of the European Union, and instead to back Britain's membership of the ERM." "As late as the morning before Black Wednesday, Brown echoed the then chancellor, Norman Lamont, in arguing that devaluation might push interest rates up rather than allow them to fall." To be remembered next time GB raises Black Wednesday.

[Tony Makara]

It will be interesting to see the direction in which Labour develop post-defeat. There will be elements in the party who will argue that the years in power were wasted and that Blair and Brown were deviationists who led the party into an ideological dead-end. I suspect a more statist trend will emerge, particularly as David Cameron will be moving in the opposite direction.

Labour will feel more comfortable presenting statism as a counter-measure. Its clear that Labour will have to develop a raft of ideas in opposition to present themselves as an alternative. A statist ideology will provide a ready made platform of proposals for Labour to build on.

[TimberWolf]

In the event of a hung parliament the natural choice would be a Conservative-Labour coalition since these parties have so much in common.
Both voted for the Iraq War, both favour nuclear energy, both prefer FPTP voting, both are class parties, both are pro-Trident etc etc etc

[Simon.]

The Liberal Democrats are a pernicious political force which is completely free of any ideology that might prove a hinderance in the pursuit of power. They may have well meaning individual members, but as a party they have forgotten why they are in the game in the first place a long time ago. They are utterly beneath contempt, and I would see the Tory party become an out of touch rump of it's former self before I saw it become anything like that power-hungry shower.

[Comstock]

Interesting post, Tony. I'd like to see Labour move not just towards statism but towards mutuality in aeras which do not suit state ownership well.

Two quick examples :-
1) many people were suggesting nationalising Northern Rock. That should have been done, but only as a pre-cursor to its re-mutualisation. Building Societies served this nation well not just in Labour years but when Thatcher started a home buying boom in the 80s.

2) Care for the elderly. I think it abhorent that people are making big bucks out of this. But big monolthic state run nursing homes are not something we can look back on with unqualified praise. Could such enterprises be mutalised? Perhaps even with residents themselves sitting on the comittee? (someone who has had a severe stroke but has a perfectly active brain could find this gives them a real purpose in life)

I'm off-topic waffling now, so I'll shut up :D

[Clockwork Mouse]

It is only necessary to read the above posts to see why a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition would not work.

Let's be realistic and as TimberWolf suggests consider a Conservative-Labour Coaltion instead.

[Marmaduke Bracegirdle]

Yes! A Grand Coalition would be best. Let the Lib Dems be in opposition with the SNP etc.

[Matt Wright]

Interesting poll. I think it tells us that the Lib Dems are hopelessly split.

[Tony Makara]

Comstock, with reference to the elderly, I too deplore the way care has become a money-making racket. We should do more to encourage the elderly to live with relatives. Not only is taking in an elderly relative a decent thing to do, but it will also greatly enhance and empower the elderly person in question. I come from a large extended family and we wouldn't dream of letting one of our elderly relatives go into a home. People deserve dignity in the autumn of their lives.

I must say that it shocks me that some people can dispatch their elderly parents to a care home. The way I see it my parents supported me when I was a helpless infant and if they ever became helpless I would be there to support them. A lot of the problems we face as a society is because the family unit, and the care that comes with it is shrinking. In forty years we have gone from extended family, to nuclear family, to single parent households. We must reverse this trend by supporting family life and that includes giving support to families who take in and care for an elderly relative.

[Bocephus]

The Lib Dems like to paint themselves as internationalists, pro EU, pro UN, pro immigration but in any by-election all we ever hear is that their candidate is the local candidate and the Tory is an "outsider" (from 30 miles away!) who could never understand the area.

They are the must narrow minded intolerant bunch I have ever come across, there is no one more intolerant than a Liberal. It's ban this, ban that, they really are pathetic. The Tories are the real Liberal Party.

[anonymous conservative]

I must say, the madness of LDs preferring Brown is as nothing compared to the madness of Labour supporters still being ready to vote for Brown, as it seems some of them do in the latest polls. Don't they recognise defeat when it stares them in the face?

[TimberWolf]

Some of the above posters may be at the risk of apoplexy.
Why is it that Conservatives have such an intense dislike of Liberal Democrats, while being much less concerned with the Labour Party?
Could it be that Conservatives have much more in common with Labour, and are not Liberal at all for all their claims?
Whenever I have considered giving up the fight it has always a remark by a Conservative that has made me decide to fight on for Liberalism.

[Comstock]

I have to say this is a silly remark, anonymous conservative.....

"the madness of LDs preferring Brown is as nothing compared to the madness of Labour supporters still being ready to vote for Brown, as it seems some of them do in the latest polls. Don't they recognise defeat when it stares them in the face?"

What do you expect us to do, change sides to back whoever is going to win?

[Andrew Landriani]

The essential point which comes out of recent events is that the Conservatives are unlikely to need to consider a coalition with anyone, if the GE results mirror recent opinion polls.

As for delivering 12 leaflets a year - in this year's local elections the liberal democrats made the mistake of delivering TOO MANY leaflets during the campaign, alienating voters in the process.

This was their only response to the growing realisation that they were going to lose where they had expected to win! Clear testimony that they had become enormously out of touch and out of ideas (well, practical ones anyway).

[Andrew Landriani]

...and as for the libdems preferring Brown to Cameron, this is because their party is essentially an anti-tory party, existing mainly to hold together a ragbag of left-wing, non-conformist, 'alternative'politics,
oddballs who would be shown the door even by Labour!

All the time most libdems oppose the Conservatives then we can be sure David Cameron is on then right track!

Its uncommitted, middle-of-the-road, floating voters who tend towards the libdems whom Conservatives wish to attract, not the strange individuals they used to vote for!!

[Comstock]

"if the GE results mirror recent opinion polls."

Not going to happen. There will almost certainly be some kind of swing back to the incumbant as soon as he goes up The Mall. Even in the mega-landslide year of 97 Labour didn't do quite as well as some opinion polls (which put them on a whopping 50%)

[John Moss]

This is no surprise. Most LD members I know are socialists through and through. That's why I think Huhne will win, because he is more of a big government, state control sort of guy.

A more interesting question would be what percentage of LD voters think the same.

[Comstock]

Most LD members I know are socialists through and through

You may be right. A lot of lefties joined the LDs when Tony Blair took Labour towards the centre, and there was another influx circa Iraq.

[Josh]

No surprise. Just look at some of the libdem posters at pb.com. In the lib-con marginals, the campaign will be critical. Obviously all the good stuff is very important, but in that must be the clear message, "Vote yellow, get Brown"

"A statist ideology will provide a ready made platform of proposals for Labour to build on."

In other words do a Michael Foot. Lurch to the left, loose by a landslide in 2014, then spend the next 14 rebuilding the party through a modernisation campaign which basically involves aping One Nation Conservatism again.

[Mr Angry]

Just goes to show how totally foolish and misguided was the Steve Hilton strategy of trying to woo the LibDems by moving in their direction politically. Let's hope that that piece of stupidity is now consigned to the dustbin where it belongs and that we can continue to offer the electorate a conservative vision and choice.

[Tony Makara]

Mr Angry, its very difficult to move onto Liberal ground if that ground is constantly shifting. The reason why the Liberals have never been able to attract a traditional core vote is because they are a floating political party and only reel in floating and disaffected voters. What do Liberals stand for? Labour are defined by their statist philosophy, The Conservative party is defined by its celebration of the individual, but the Liberals...?

[Tony Makara]

Josh, representative politics is a bit like fashion, trouser flares can only extend to a certain length before they have to start getting smaller again. Labour, having been elbowed out of the centre ground will either have to fight to regain that ground which will be as good as possible so long as the Conservative party does a reasonable job in office, or they will have to offer a more radical statist alternative. Thats what will make the battle for the soul of the Labour party interesting when they are in opposition.

Which way will Labour go? Having lost as New Labour its going to be hard to convince Labour supporters that being New Labour is the way to get back into power. They will want something more radical. I know a lot of Labour supporters and they all say the same thing, that the last decade has been a wasted opportunity, that the party has lost its radical edge, that the party has been hijacked by careerists, basically they are saying that the great change that they hoped for in 1997 has been betrayed. I suspect that when Labour lose the next election the party will have to become more radical to appease its angry rank and file.

[Josh]

"Having lost as New Labour its going to be hard to convince Labour supporters that being New Labour is the way to get back into power."

Hang on. They didn't lose as New Labour. They won big as New Labour. They lost catastrophically as an Old Labour. The potential loss in 2010 will be the result of being crap.

The lesson for Labour is to be New Labour but just suck less.

[Tony Makara]

Josh, its worth bearing in mind that the concept of New Labour was sold to Labour supporters just as much as it was sold to the wider electorate. New Labour wasn't and isn't a reflection of the views of most rank and file Labour supporters. Nontheless they bought into the idea while it proved to be successful, few could argue with the three back-to-back victories won by Blair and Labour supporters thought that each new victory would bring the vision and change they were looking for. However each new victory saw the hoped for vision seem further away than ever. Now staring defeat in the face Labour supporters are ready to give up on the New Labour project, finally accepting that they have been sold a pig in a poke.

Now there is a lot of anger from Labour supporters who believe in conviction politics, a conviction and a vision they haven't received from New Labour and won't get from New Labour. They feel cheated and from a political perspective I can see where they are coming from. As a friend said to me:

"We waited eighteen years to get into power to help the poor and what happened, we made students pay to go to university, we took away NHS dentistry, and we joined in an illegal war against the advice of the world to support a war-mongering republican president"

No wonder they feel like they've been cheated three times. Even Roy Hattersly was making the call for a change of direction today. However its too late for that now, Labour have even lost the trust of their own supporters and they won't get it back as New Labour.

[Yet Another Anon]

If an election is looking unwinnable by May 2009 Brown should take the hit and go to the country anyway, leaving the door open for Labour getting back in (presumably with a new leader) in 2013.
I expect that the General Election will be on 11 June 2009 in a big Super Thursday with Local and EU elections.

If a party wins a majority then it's not neccessarily easier for them to win the next time around, life doesn't neccessarily work like that, Labour's reaction to defeat most likely would be some kind of Bennite lurch and internal arguments much as in the 1980s leaving them out of power for decades if there was a new leader, it would be far more likely that there would be pressure on Gordon Brown to recover the situation and win things back again, if after a Labour loss he went then New Labour would almost certainly go with him.

Unless Labour had a very bad defeat then I imagine that much as Ramsay MacDonald, Arthur Henderson, Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson did I imagine he would persevere.

If Jim Callaghan had decided to he could have remained Labour leader through to 1983, he went because he thought that at that point Dennis Healey would beat Michael Foot under the rules then applying.

Labour is going to have difficulties for a bit, it is after all still mid-term, Labour had major problems in 2004 and 2008 looks like being difficult for Labour but over different issues.

People often forget the ripples of The Westland Affair that caused severe dificulties to the then government in 1986, the following year the government won a very strong victory. At that point talk was all of an Alliance breakthrough, even a landslide victory by the Alliance (who had far more support than the Liberal Democrats have had at any time since) and the Alliance threat withered away in face of strengthening turnout for Labour and the Conservative Party.

The Liberal Democrats in 2005 only got back to the total number of votes they got in 1992 - in 1983 David Steel said "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government", before him there was a Liberal dawn in 1974 - the Liberal Democrat vote may have concentrated, but their support at General Elections was no higher in total than that of the mid-1970s; Jeremy Thorpe, Jo Grimond, David Steel, Roy Jenkins, Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy, now Nick Clegg - all supposedly ready to lead the party to form a government or failing that breaking through 100 seats, they couldn't do that on 7.3-7.8 million votes in the 1980s and they won't do that on the less than 4.8-5.9 million votes they've been getting since.

[Josh]

Your points make sense, Tony. I think we're sort of looking at this from different angles. I'm thinking about what would probably be the better thing for Labour to do, while you're thinking about what the Labour base would want to do.

I agree that the defeat of New Labour would probably bring successful calls from the rank 'n' file for a lurch to the left, but I also think that will also see a return to the Labour nadir of the '80s.

[Paul]

the lib dems are and always will be a divided party, and it is for that reason they cant be trusted with any power, as even if voted out quickly, they can cause a lot of damage. They exist as a protest party not a party of government.

In reference to the greens causing trouble for the lib dem in norwich. That is certain to happen, the lib dems in norwich are already in meltdown, over a few years they have dropped from some 30 to 11 counciliers. This upcoming year 7 of them are up for re-election, and it will be a slaughter, even if they manage to hold in a few wards, it is almost certain that the greens will be the offical opposition in the council, which could allow them to steal lots of votes off them in the GE. That will probably save clarke or pehaps let us sink in by the back door.

Of course this is depending on unitary not going through as the whole complexion of norwich could change after that

[snegchui]

Sold???? New Labour ... NOTHING WAS SOLD. Go back to 1997, nobody said nuffink. Bleeper fascism ruled in the Labour Party. Labour were not voted for, the votes were against nannying or sleazy Conservatives. How does this translate to today? People disliked Blair eventually because spin and distortion seemed to be the main tools of Govt to compensate for poor delivery. "Service Delivery" will be the totem that drives the next election. So Conservatives now, what do they stand for and CAN THEY DELIVER IT? People are getting a slightly clearer vision which in theory (That Great Land like for the Soviets "Principle" ) is marvellous. But delivery, Labour proved yak and delivery are two different things in a big way, I think next election (people more educated, thoughtful) will be looking for something to vote for (delivery) than just against (time for change). If the Cameron leadership can push no stronger message than change, then the job is much much harder this time. Change for the sake of change has worked once, maybe (probably not) twice. Statism vs good control by the state. Old peoples' homes, fine let us avoid Nye Bevan Lodge abuses where the unions obstructed police investigations, but don't let cash-rich people run these homes un-monitored. Statism do it all yourself (Labour) Conservatism, let the private sector do it but understand profits and incentives and set them accordingly. Difficult to do but as a voter what am I paying you for? Yes I can run a rest home for huge income and pare costs, who couldn't? Who makes sure I make a living and my residents have dignity? The State, or Local Govt suitably incentivised. Inmates in faeces, do not fine the business, fine individuals or jail them. Yes cost of labour may go up as training needs go up, but it moves towards pay and punishment related to performance, not the regime we have at present that reward is not related to risk at all.

[Simon.]

[i]' have to say this is a silly remark, anonymous conservative.....

"the madness of LDs preferring Brown is as nothing compared to the madness of Labour supporters still being ready to vote for Brown, as it seems some of them do in the latest polls. Don't they recognise defeat when it stares them in the face?"

What do you expect us to do, change sides to back whoever is going to win?

Posted by: Comstock | December 02, 2007 at 20:01'[/i]

No, but maybe change sides to back whoever might form a decent Government? It's called democracy. It must be clear to you now that this administration is both grubbingly sleazy and disastrously incompetent. The alternative is surely admitting that your politics is as ludicrously tribal as Dennis Skinner or Polly Toynbee.

[Alex Swanson]

"The Conservative party is defined by its celebration of the individual"

Since when, Tony? I wish this were true, but the fact is that by any objective standard the current Conservative Party is high-tax, high-spend, pro-state. To the extent that it looks pro-individual, this is only by comparison with an even worse government.

[Michael Davidson]

Simon, that's silly. That's like saying why did a quarter of voters vote Conservative in 1997.

People who are naturally Labour supporters will typically vote Labour regardless of Westminster scandals. And the same applies for Conservatives.

[Michael Davidson]

Simon, that's silly. That's like saying why did a quarter of voters vote Conservative in 1997.

People who are naturally Labour supporters will typically vote Labour regardless of Westminster scandals. And the same applies for Conservatives.

[pauline buffham]

"Vote Lib Dem~ Get Labour" (Edison Smith 15:42)

A excellent slogan and one well worth remembering.

That's exactly what happened in the February 1974 General Election, when many Conservative minded people, fed up with Heath,said 'A plague on both their houses'(Con and Lab) and for the first and only time voted Liberal in effect electing Wilson and his merry crew back into power for four years of inflationary hell.

[Graeme Archer]

Just goes to show how totally foolish and misguided was the Steve Hilton strategy of trying to woo the LibDems by moving in their direction politically. - Mr Angry

Mr Angry, you'd be right if the Tory strategy was aimed at wooing LibDem *activists*, but of course it isn't - it's aimed at winning back the squillions of (forgive the temporary lapse into a marxist demographer vocabulary) educated middle-class voters, who 15 years ago would have voted Tory without thinking twice, but who drifted away from us because of the toxic odour we emitted over that time. Not arguing whether or not their perception was correct (of course I don't think so); but the polling evidence and how it felt to me on the doorstep makes it feel a compelling hypothesis.

So our tactic in LD seats - given extra rationale by this poll of LD activists - should be to highlight the difference between the agenda of a truly liberal Conservative agenda, and the hardleft rubbish on offer from the LD activists. I find it hard to believe that voters in the south of England, those who are currently represented by a LibDem, are desperate for more Brown or a coalition government where their member will be constantly pushing Brown to move further to the left.

[HF]

Andrew Landriani "in this year's local elections the liberal democrats made the mistake of delivering TOO MANY leaflets during the campaign, alienating voters in the process."

Which area/council was that?

[Chad Noble]

"Mr Angry, you'd be right if the Tory strategy was aimed at wooing LibDem *activists*,"

Graeme,

Where does LibDems4Cameron.com which specifically highlights LibDem councillors and candidates, fit into your denial of a 'wooing LibDem activists' strategy?

[HF]

The point Graeme Archer makes about the need to highlight the difference between the agenda of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems echos the tactics of John Redwood who published Lib Dem policies to their voters in Wokingham.

To do this needs many leaflets saying the same thing in slightly different ways.

In my view it takes 5 leaflets to get one message across to a large % of voters.

[Chad Noble]

"I say to Liberal Democrats everywhere: join me in my mission"

That's a quote from Cameron on the official Conservatives site.

Let's not deny that official Tory Party strategy is to woo LibDems, please.

[Matt Wright]

Snegchui, the state is generally not very good at delivery as it is too distant and bureaucratic. On balance the many choices of families and communities on business and voluntary enterprises are better at ordering things. However this too is not perfect by any means. The system depends on a level of responsibility to balance freedom. The state in my view needs to create the conditions to encourage social responsibility plus free and fair trade. The "free market" is good when it actually is free, which is a lot of the time, but it tends at times to go through major cycles in which a few large companies start to rule the roost in key markets. As long as Conservatives recognise this and stick up for the small people, businesses and voluntary enterprises, then we can make a real difference,

Matt

[Graeme Archer]

What a strangely dichotomous view of the world you have Chad. Is that a UKIP characteristic I wonder? I think the libdems4cameron website is great. Just the other day CH was discussing some libdem MEP who crossed the floor. My view of these activists is that they are fodder, to be used to dispirit the remaining libdem activists and candidates. In any case, even according to this poll, about 30% of LD activists are of the centre-right. Those ones we should obviously do our best to attract to our party as members. But the whole point of all that entire exercise is always, always, always about attracting back the people who used to vote Tory but who switched to the LDs because they *seemed* nicer. Where is the contradiction? Now please don't bother answering my dull post and trying to point out some latent contradiction, I have to go Christmas shopping. Have a nice day!

[Comstock]

Simon, my politics proberbly are "as ludicrously tribal as Dennis Skinner or Polly Toynbee.". And I'm not ashamed to 'admit' it!!

..................................

By the way, if you want to put stuff in italics, use < followed by i> . If you are using bold, it's < followed by b> . [i] in square brackets doesn't work, nor does [quote="postername"] unlike on most VBulletin boards.

*ALWAYS* switch bold or italics off (even at the end of the post) with < followed by /i> or < followed by /b> as apropriate, or it causes chaos. (I must confess I've been the guilty party on many occasions!!!)

Gawd I'm showing folks around........I guess this makes me an old time regular :D

[Geoff]

Comstock and Simon (and everybody else), the Deputy Editor has already written a useful set of hints here

[Simon Denis]

In gathering in the votes the tories should look to a) the mass of their own lost support, as suggested by Lord Tebbit; b) the ex-yuppies who defected to Blair in the nineties; c) the few remaining right leaning liberals; d) anyone else. This will be a fine balancing act, but given DC's recent superb performance and the general hatred of Labour, it should at last be possible. There is no earthly point in trying to deal with today's liberals institutionally. They are drifters; the moment an idea becomes orthodox or entrenched, they are for it. Anything which challenges such ideas, no matter how convincingly, they oppose. This would be tolerable if it meant they were flexible and adaptable, but in peevish, unacknowledged awareness of how feeble they are, they would obstinately water down any of the sensible, radical, right wing measures which are daily becoming more necessary. Better a deal with some split away, Blairite rump than with the wet, whining, self-righteous yellow party.