Losing Friends and Influence
This is from Peter Cranie of the North West Green Party
For a long time, the Liberal Democrats have built a comfortable coalition in the centre of British politics. For voters disillusioned with the “red or blue” option, they became a safe protest vote. For voters who wanted politicians to care more about the planet, they were a better option. For tactical voters more interested in beating their political “enemy” (red or blue), the Lib Dems became a useful option. Finally, we should not forget that there are principled and ideologically Liberal voters as well.
Credit where credit is due – the Lib Dems have had to fight hard to make council and Parliamentary gains. They have had in relative terms, less resources than Labour or the Conservatives. Pursuing a targeting strategy, they have successfully made progress and shown an incredible ability to position themselves as the main challenger. That progress is now at an end after a brief move to perhaps become a left of Labour political force has been terminated by the need to try and prevent the loss of many marginal seats to the Conservatives in the south of England.
The pattern of the last decade has been Conservative supporters regularly switching to back the Lib Dems at elections where they have the best chance of beating Labour. Labour supporters have regularly switched to the Lib Dems to enable them to beat the Conservatives.
Times are changing. In European Elections, UKIP are now positioned as the protest vote of choice for the vast majority of anti-European voters. In council elections, the Greens and the BNP are now contesting far more seats than ever before. The effect is that rather than being faced with three options on the ballot paper, voters are increasingly being offered up to six. This is a serious problem for the Lib Dems.Without a Green candidate, one out of three Green supporters will probably stay at home, but the other two will go out and vote. The proportion of Green voters who select the Lib Dems as the least worst alternative option is a bigger proportion that those that might switch to Labour or a Socialist candidate. The absence of a Green candidate, at any level of election, does benefit the Lib Dems more than Labour or the Conservatives.
The Greens are growing. Votes. Membership. Councillors. All of these are on the increase. Clearly the Lib Dems are aware of the challenge we increasingly pose, and two tactics are now in place to try and tackle us. The first is an attempt to paint the Greens as extremists and the second is to try and talk up the Lib Dem record on the environment.
Painting your opponents as extremist is a risky strategy. To do so means giving up the moral high ground. You also have to be successful. If your attempts to label your opponents as extremists fail (because the claim flies in the face of the real political experience of voters), your own party is damaged. That is our experience in Liverpool, where despite a consistent attempt to smear the Greens is largely backfiring [documented herehttp://liverpool.greenparty.org.uk/focusattack/focus_attack.htm].Talking up the Lib Dem record on the environment to attract Green votes is also tough. Some Lib Dems, such as my Euro MP Chris Davies, have an excellent record in that area. While I might disagree with Chris over a number of issues, I accept that he is 100% committed to the same goals as I am. However, other prominent Lib Dems, such as Warren Bradley, the leader of Liverpool City Council, will urge business leaders to fly Liverpool to London, rather than use the train, in a misguided attempt to promote economic growth through our airport.It is inconsistency that plagues the Lib Dems on the environment. Opposing Heathrow expansion but supporting regional airport expansion just doesn’t cut it for increasing numbers of green minded voters. The awkward and stubborn growth of the Greens, despite only a fraction of the resources of the Lib Dems, means that part of their coalition of support is leaking away. The inconsistent environmental record of the Lib Dems makes the loss of that support inevitable.Their lack of any distinct economic vision separate from the managerial liberalism of this Labour government and the Tory opposition means that the Lib Dems, by virtue of their own success, are now largely seen as part of the establishment. This places a second part of the coalition, the protest vote, under threat from the Greens and other parties. By turning political fire onto the Greens, as we are seeing in the Norwich North byelection, it becomes increasingly difficult to subsequently operate on the moral high ground that previously attracted some of your voters.
Committed supporters of PR and ideological Liberal activists voters are not going to be put off their party by the use of electoral tactics or the growth of political rivals. However the focus groups I have witnessed show members of the public stumped by what the Liberal Democrats actually stand for. They know what Labour is about. They know what the Conservatives are arguing for. The Greens are easily identified as standing up for the environment (even with a good track record on social justice, unsurprisingly people continue to identify us with green issues). But the Lib Dems? Most people don’t know.
So the huge danger to the future political fortunes of the Liberals is that the final part of the coalition, the tactical voter, is now under threat. The threat from the Greens to the Lib Dem electoral coalition is very real and very public in Norwich. We are likely to have one tenth of the resources that the Lib Dems will throw at this byelection but the growth in the Green vote since 2005 will expose the fragility of the Lib Dems nationally. These are votes that the Lib Dems might once have hoped to capture.
More seriously, the Lib Dems are without political friends at the moment. A weak Lib Dem performance at the next General Election will obviously benefit the Conservatives, but it will also help Labour hold onto a number of marginal seats in an election they look as though they will lose heavily. Both red and blue stand to benefit from a Liberal decline during the next Parliament and the political conditions are increasingly challenging for the Lib Dems.The conditions are not going to get better than in 2005, which will be seen as the Liberal high watermark. The election of two Green MPs at Westminster will signal a far more rapid break up of what is an increasingly fragile Liberal coalition, so with Norwich North certain to turn Tory in this byelection, the contest between Greens and Liberal Democrats is also part of the Norwich South campaign by proxy.
If the Lib Dems do just manage to stay ahead of the Greens, outspending us 10 to 1, it will be seen as some form of achievement. Nick Clegg will no doubt hope that it delays a second Green MP entering the Commons to the election after next. But it will not halt a rapid decline in Lib Dem representation and political influence over the next five years.
Unless the Liberal Democrats can tackle their own problems – their franchise approach to politics, characterised by local inconsistencies and a reliance on very negative campaigning – the long term prospects for Nick Clegg’s party are not good.
–
Peter Cranie North West Green Party
This is the kind of level the LibDems have sunk to in Norwich North: http://twitpic.com/a48zs
It’s a shame, because Vince Cable at yesterday’s Progressive London event showed the contribution the LibDems are capable of.
One interesting question is whether the LibDems have become so expert at targetting that they would actually stand to lose out if PR was brought in. Or certainly they might lose their zeal for it. An extraordinary thought.
Comment by Strategist — 12 July, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
Thanks Derek and Peter.
An interesting article and, quite by chance, I was having a very similar discussion with a Labour-supporting friend of mine earlier today.
We both felt that a scenario which sees the LibDems slipping back towards the level of the Greens, UKIP and the fascists appears increasingly likely.
“Two big - four small” rather than thre present “three and three” in other words.
However, what’s missing from all of this is the organised left.
Will the left come together to form an electoral challenge? Or is it more likely that left-leaning people will either stick with Labour or look to the Greens?
Comment by communist — 12 July, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
#2 That feels like wishful thinking from your third-placed, 15.7% share of the vote at the Euro elections Labour-supporting friend. Both partners in the duopoly have a shared interest in the continuation of the duopoly. But the fact is Labour are about to plumb unprecedented depths, a fate richly deserved by all in Labour including its left, who simply failed to do enough to stop the catastrophe that Blair & Brown have visited on party & country.
Labour hubris of the type which your pal exhibits and (astonishingly) is still widespread, needs to meet its nemesis if your own vision of the left coming together to be realised. In 2010 it will. Labour will be thrashed so severely that the New Labour careerists will fuck off and join the Tories, and the rump (if it has any brain in its rump) will see that it will never win a First Past the Post election again, and must collaborate with others. The latter particularly true if Scotland votes to exit the UK in response to having a massive nasty right wing Tory majority at Westminster dumped upon it by England.
Comment by Strategist — 13 July, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Peter,
Isn’t this a double edged sword to use against the Lib Dems:
“Unless the Liberal Democrats can tackle their own problems – their franchise approach to politics, characterised by local inconsistencies ”
This would seem to apply to the Greens even more than to the Lib Dems in my expereicne.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 July, 2009 @ 11:47 am
4# It does matter because the left will need to deal with a Green Party with a higher level of support because of the damage that capaitalism has done to the planet - in the UK, Europe and more importantly around the globe where climate change is becoming a bigger material issue.
So working with the Green Party is important because of the material basis of their support.
In terms of the Lib Dems they were only formed to stop the left Labour Party winning power - they represent no one except themselves!
Comment by Roy — 13 July, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
You are right Andy. We’ve had our own problems with local parties making coalition decisions that the respective regional party or national party would baulk at. I do think that has greatly improved of late.
However, you don’t get that to the policy extremes of the Lib Dems. One example is aviation, where Lib Dems are for or against entirely based on local circumstances. Another example is bypass building, same reasons.
I accept we are not perfect, there are improvements to make, and we must ensure we never end up down the path trodden by the Irish Greens. What I do think we still do well is decent politics, a quality that seems to be lacking in a number of Lib Dem campaigns recently.
Comment by Peter Cranie — 13 July, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
#5 Peter’s use of the term “the franchise approach to politics” came to mind this morning when listening to the Today programme, where someone was saying that the LibDem national party will only provide resources to support your candidacy for council elections etc as long as you pay back to them 10% of any salary or expenses you get when successfully elected. Can’t find the link on the Radio 4 website.
Comment by Strategist — 13 July, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Interestingly this has just gone up from a Lib Dem blogger http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2009/07/12/have-the-lib-dems-lost-the-plot-in-norwich/
Comment by Peter Cranie — 13 July, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Since the LibDems, local and national, are inconsistent on the environment, why don’t the Green Party therefore rule out coalitions with them on local councils? They have been involved in three over the last five years that I have heard of - Oxford, Lancaster (with Labour too) and Leeds (with Tories too).
In fact I think I am right in saying that every coalition in British local government that the Green Party have engaged in in recent times has involved the LibDems.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 13 July, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
Just to correct, the Greens have never had a coalition on Lancaster Council with anyone. Since their first five councillors where elected in 1999 there has always been a PR cabinet on the council, it was a Green proposal and was the least worst option possible - we didn’t want a cabinet system at all.
From then until now and possibly uniquely to Lancaster and Morecambe council, it has been run under this odd arrangement of PR. In nearly all major issues the Libs, Lab and Cons vote together and the Greens vote in opposition. This was the case in the budget this year, the plans for development of a major new shopping complex, the business park etc. However, there are exceptions to this and these can split along all lines and even within Party’s. Recently an academy school proposal was supported by Labour and opposed by all the others.
As a rank and file local Green Party member I’m extremely pleased on the whole with the way the Greens have acted. It is tough way to work things but what is better - being outside of all the decision making and having no influence or being on the debates and being on the losing side. We get falsely criticised for being in coalition but this is not the case at all.
Interestingly, we are the only party of the four not to have led the cabinet over these years despite having the equal most number of councillors, now standing at twelve. This is because the other party’s will not support any of our candidates. It is quite clear that all three other main party’s are intimately linked with business as usual connections… some of it is awful beyond belief.
Just to mention that the Morecambe Bay Independent Group are also on the cabinet. They have an even weirder relationship with other Party’s. They politically hate the Cons and Labour much more than us but are generally of the small business owner variety and are inherently conservative. They are totally unpredictable and did vote for our council leader nomination last year, a vote that we eventually lost 25-24 to Labour at full council. Probably lucky we didn’t win, it is a poisoned chalice particularly as a minority group.
Comment by Chris Hart — 13 July, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Interesting spin, Chris Hart.
From Lancaster City Council official documents:
The Cabinet Coalition formed after the Lancaster City Council elections in 2003 between the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties was based on an agreement on policies. These were taken from the election manifestos of Labour and Green parties and an election statement prepared by the Liberal Democrat party. The agreement thus has its basis in policies that have been put to local electors and thereby has democratic legitimacy. The
Coalition believes that its programme should be available to the public and has published its priorities in two reports to the Cabinet. The Cabinet formally adopted the Coalition Priorities on 5th August 2003. They were reviewed and revised in 2004 and adopted by the
Cabinet on 21st December 2004. These priorities have been used as a basis for the Corporate Plans of Lancaster City Council for 2004/05 and 2005/06 respectively.
Lancaster City Council Draft Cabinet Priorities 2006/07
—————————
COMPOSITION OF CABINET
Council were advised that it was necessary to determine the basis on which the Cabinet should be established for the ensuing year.
It was moved by Councillor Barker and seconded by Councillor Quinton:-
That the Cabinet for the Municipal Year 2004/05 be a coalition Cabinet composed of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Members.
On being put to the vote the Mayor declared the proposition clearly carried.
Resolved:-
That the Cabinet for the Municipal Year 2004/05 be a coalition Cabinet composed of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Members.
Council Minutes 12/05/04
————————————
Strange how it has taken the Green Party so many years to object to this official statement of the priorities of the council?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 13 July, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
#9 The LibDems being inconsistent on the env should not exclude all prospect of being in coalition with them, especially if locally they are more reasonable. The only parties that should be ruled out of all consideration for ever being in coalition with are those that are consistently and always beyond the pale, like the BNP. A coalition with any other party that currently has MPs or MEPs would be a reasonable course of action if it kept the BNP out of power. Amongst the other parties, there should always be a calculation about what can be gained from being in coalition AND what would be lost (I fear that in some circumstances Greens have failed to look at that side of the equation).
Comment by Ben — 13 July, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Well Prinkpo, good quick research. I have to say that what you print is news to me, I am pretty amazed that any election manifestos were combined to make any document as we have utterly opposed the other party’s on most key issues. However, It is quite possible that the Greens opposed these priorities, as recorded the motion was clearly clearly carried but not unanimous. We would have had at most had two or maybe one cabinet member out of ten at that time. Do you have a list of those voting for and against, I guess if numbers were not recorded
Your text also misses out that the Morecambe Bay Independent Party had either two or three cabinet member at that time and so must also by that reckoning have been coalition members so I can’t see how this an accurate record anyway. However, I still believe what is written is not correct, there is no coalition to the best of my fairly informed knowledge.. I shall seek clarification through Cllr Barry who would have been our cabinet member.
Cllr Barker (Lab) and Cllr Quinton (Lib) by the way were arch enemies of the Greens but as you seem well informed I expect you know this.
Perhaps no one has objected to this statement because there are so many things to object to that have more importance.
Comment by Chris Hart — 13 July, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
Prinkipo Exile
I bow to your better knowledge. Apparently there was a coalition between 2003-2007 as the other Party’s would no longer work in a PR system. The Greens had the choice of joining the Lab and Libs or Con and Independents.
Once agreed with Lib Lab they set out a manifesto of generally shared views, investing in a new arts centre, opening a street market, investing in the recycling scheme but did not make a manifesto agreement on things they disagreed with. It is hard but if one is not on cabinet then one has no voice at all these days. Is principled stand that means one sits for four years getting nowhere sensible? For anyone who lives here it was quite obvious that for the most part Greens were at logger heads with Lab/LIb over key issues as remains the case today.
After the 2007 election when both Cllrs Barker and Quinton were not re-elected it went back to a PR council and now stands like this with Lab, Con and Lib always voting together to get a rotating council leader from their Party’s. At present this is a Liberal although they only hold 4 out of 60 seats.
Just for interest, what would be your approach - it is always simply to criticise. However, thanks for the information and I stand corrected.
Comment by Chris Hart — 14 July, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Chris- Your last comment would be more credible if 4 comments up you were not telling us how you cannot abide cabinet systems, the other parties wouldn’t work with you and that showed just how wonderful and principled your Greens were.
Now, they were doing completly the opposite and that shows they know how politics works and just do the necessary thing.
Either one is a position you can push- but when only one is true and you flip between them as convinient you look more than a little silly. Really in light of ealier comments about how not being in coalition is something to be proud of your last comment just appears as apologia.
Comment by Tinter — 14 July, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Here’s a worthwhile article on the Greens and related questions:
http://thejuniusblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/are-the-greens-an-alterantive/
Comment by ID — 14 July, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
Tinter
Maybe you might explain how best one can work. it is so easy to cast stones. I don’t like cabinet systems, particularly crap if you are outside them as then one is utterly irrelevant.
I remain very pleased with what the Greens have done in Lancaster and their stand on against the odds and constant business/media attack.
Comment by Chris Hart — 14 July, 2009 @ 11:03 pm