The Lib Dems electoral gains

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:40:17 AM EDT

Markos and I stayed up till 4 am his time in London chatting on IM as the UK returns came in, and today (works good on no sleep apparently) he wrote a steller wrap on what the Liberal Democrats gained in this election, interviewing Dean's first Presidential campaign manager, Rick Ridder, who is a consultant for the Lib Dems:When the dust settled, the Lib Dems had gained four points from 2001, and won 11 additional seats: lower than hoped, but it still gave them plenty to be excited about.

"The real number is that the Lib Dems moved into second place in over 160 constituencies, which is 50 more than they had in 2001, so they've moved up increasingly as the alternative party," Mr Ridder said.

...Ridder said three factors helped propel Lib Dem gains: first, the "character issues related to Tony Blair". That was why the Lib Dems (and the Tories, for a while), seized on allegations last weekend that Mr Blair had considered war with Iraq before having any rationale for the action. It was the issue of trust. Second, they focused heavily on education issues, particularly the raising of university fees. This allowed the Lib Dems to make substantial gains in university constituencies. "This bodes extremely well for the party's future. Once you vote for a party, it's one of the social activities you repeat," Ridder said. "Once you get people locked in, it makes a huge difference."

And only third does the war come up. "The war was an issue, but those people came in way before the election period," Ridder added. "I don't think you can discount it, but the education piece provided the lift."

The Liberal Democrats will have a tough time of balancing the liberal and libertarian impulses that have fostered their gains, as Ben P pointed out below in his wrap, but the LD's certainly have gained the footing in this election to become a national party.

Tags: Foreign Elections (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

Sort by

permalink

2 more good things for the LibDems

The Guardian comment piece was excellent. Two other pieces of information worth adding that show the LibDems have are in much better shape than before:

Bristol West Victory: The closest 3-way marginal in England, with Labour, Tories and LDs all within striking distance. The LibDems won it on a strong swing from Labour, and the Tories picked up nothing. It is the best demonstration of all that the LibDem vote is more than a protest vote - when the LibDems are on equal footing with the other two parties, voters are willing to treat them as real players in the game.
What Didn't Happen: The Labour Party relentlessly claimed, "Vote for Kennedy, Get Howard." If that had happened across the country, the fate of a third party would be dire, as voters would retreat to the lesser of evils. Instead, in the vast majority of Tory gains from Labour (I haven't done the exact math), the Tory win was on a swing from Labour to Tory, not on a swing from Labour to LibDem. This proves that British voters understand tactical voting, and will make it much harder for the Labour Party to try that same line in 2008 or 09.

by Dave Kamper 2005-05-06 10:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2 more good things for the LibDems

I'm not sure about your last point. I was just looking at the BBC website, and many of the Con gains were a result of Labour support bleeding to the LDs. For example, Wimbledon and ST.Albans are both clearly examples of this. However, it should be remembered that many of those LD votes that went to Labour in '01 and '97 in these seats were tactical votes against the Tories, not core label support.

by Ben P 2005-05-06 09:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Isn't Labour Liberal?

Forgive my ignorance on British politics, but isn't the Labour party already pretty liberal? As far as I know all the British parties support the current uniform healthcare system, a relatively high minimum wage, and other general 'welfare state' type institutions. How far do you want them to go? I guess this leads me into another question, and that would be of all the governments in the world which do you consider to be closest to the 'ideal'?

by Freedom Fighter 2005-05-06 11:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Isn't Labour Liberal?

The current Labour Government is the most authoritarian that anyone can remember. They have shown a complete disregard for civil liberties in a way which goes beyond anything done by the Conservatives over the past fifty years.

by UKLIB 2005-09-23 05:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Oy

Yes, super, a party that threatens to split the center-left vote in the UK rides forth... boy, won't our British cousins be thrilled when they succeed and the Tories come to power again?

Nader in '08!

by foobar 2005-05-06 05:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Oy

Afterall the Liberal Democrats and their predecessor parties have only been around for a mere 300+ years. The Liberals were the dominant party in the battle with the Conservatives when they were the largest left of centre party. Since the Labour Party took over from the Liberals the Tories have overwhelmingly dominated British politics. It was Labour who split the left of centre vote, not the Liberals.

Many of the voters who switched from Labour to the Liberal Democrats were traditional Liberal Democrat voters who had voted tactically in 1997 and 2001 to get the Tories out. By 2005 they had become disillusioned with the right wing policies of the Labour Government and switched back to their traditional Liberal home. Of the 33 seats that Labour lost to the Tories around half were due to voters switching back to the Liberal Democrats.

by UKLIB 2005-09-23 05:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Labor the only Nation-wide Party

Labor held on in large part because it got a clear majority of the seats in northern England, Scotland, and Wales. This is kind of like Canada where the Conservatives were once a national party but now only the Liberals are.

Why is that so when the Democrats have trouble competing nationally? Try the relative power of labor unions and the importance of state=delivered services like national health.

Is there a lesson here?

by David Kowalski 2005-05-06 08:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Labor the only Nation-wide Party

Good point on Canada.

by Ben P 2005-05-06 09:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

That's not true

The Lib Dems did well nation wide. The Torries also won seats in all parts of the country, with the exception of the northern part of Scotland (they have one seat in southern Scotland). (Both statements exclude Northern Ireland, where none of the three main parties compete.)

Here's the map:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm

I see red (Labour), orange (Lib Dem) and blue (Tory) everywhere.

by Geotpf 2005-05-07 09:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Err...

...that link may not work properly. :(

Here's a smaller map:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm

by Geotpf 2005-05-07 09:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: That's not true

Actually the Tories progress was limited. They've been stuck on 31-33% of the vote for three successive elections - their worst performance since the Great Reform Act of 1832. Their gains in seats were almost all in London and SE England. In Scotland and Northern England their support fell. They also did badly in the West Midlands and made little progress in SW England. Wales, the East Midlands and East of England were a little better and they made a small number of gains.

The decline of the Tory Party is best reflected in Scotland. In the 1950's they held more than half the seats in that country. In the past three elections they've won: 1997 - 0; 2001 - 1; 2005 - 1. Its like the performance of the Democrats in the American south, only worse.

by UKLIB 2005-09-23 05:39PM | 0 recs