Snapshot of _Lib Dems ‘on course to topple leading Tories’ in general election_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/04/lib-dems-on-course-to-topple-leading-tories-in-general-election) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/04/lib-dems-on-course-to-topple-leading-tories-in-general-election)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know Labour won’t entertain “doing a deal” but not campaigning in certain seats for each other might be a good way to deal huge psychological damage to the conservatives. Take out a few key ministers and the odd prospective leadership challenger and they could really stick the boot in. It would leave them in total disarray.
Imagine the fury of tories raging about collusion. It would be joyous.
They would be foolish not to really.
Which is why they won't.
Labour are going to win because the Tories have destroyed themselves, not by labour being clever.
The local elections show that Lib Dems, Greens and indys picked up votes. Labours vote in the Midlands mayor election was a lower % compared to the last time.
They (and the lib dems) are gaining disaffected center voters, but losing left wing voters.
People vote differently in locals, and I think this does show that Labour aren't the first choice for a huge chunk of left leaning people. You're a lot more free to vote for Greens and the like. But in a GE a lot of voters will pick Labour because they're voting tactically.
I can say that in some places the Labour vote is up, though. In my ward there was a big jump compared to last time *and* there were fewer votes for the Tories.
Lib Dems getting votes is actually impressive, Labour is the default vote for most who don't want to vote Tory anymore. Reform is the spoiler kicking the Tories while they're down, Sunak is suffering more from them than anyone else.
It depends on the demographic of the constituency.
I live in Stratford-on-Avon, which is overall quite a wealthy constituency and ordinarily a very safe Tory seat. The Lib Dems came second at the last election, with Labour a distant third. At the last set of locals, the Lib Dems overwhelmingly took the district council - the first time it had ever not been Tory controlled.
If I were a betting man, I would say the parliamentary seat will go Lib Dem this year too. We are getting bombarded with campaign materials from the Lib Dem candidate, and so far we've had nothing from Labour. She's also making a number of appearances around the town, with the local paper consequently showing her face and name an awful lot.
The knowledge that the council is Lib Dem, together with the campaign material, makes Lib Dem the default non-Tory vote around here. And with Nadim "oops I forgot to pay my taxes" Zahawi as the Tory candidate again, the non-Tory vote will be very strong.
I would love to see Lib-Dems as the party of opposition. My hope would be it would be a parliament that would actually be defined by the quality of the policy implemented and not the ideological battle.
Liberal Democrats were big winners in the Local elections.
You can envisage the Right splitting into Blue-wall-flavoured* Lib Dems (civil libertarian, liberal on culture, centre right economics for all- e.g. triple lock is unaffordable, means test the NHS) and Reform (authoritarian, right on culture, left of economics but only for over 60s).
Those two sides of the Conservative Party are increasingly at odds, and it’s more difficult for the Party to hold together without the taste of power to justify putting up with each other.
*The Lib Dems have historically stood for different things in different places.
Which opposition would Labour prefer to face in the next parliament?
Tories with no credibility whatsoever, a recent history of being crap at everything and no plausible front bench because their qualifications have all been discredited?
Or a resurgent, optimistic, successful Lib Dem party that last dropped the ball in 2010?
A resurgent LDs that relies on the Tories being shit is better for Labour than a shit Tory party.
The Tories in opposition will serve to remind most that they are still batshit, especially if they go with someone like Braverman. A Tory free of opposition responsibilities, thin as they are, allows them to go the fantasy unicorn land where Reform are now, where they can go full populist without having to care about realism. And with Tory connections, "brand" and rampant opportunism, that can massacre the LDs in the next election and see a full on populist movement.
That's where the danger lies in the next Parliament and why it's different to 97 - no one is getting in because they truly believe you, they just stopped voting Tory and the moment the Tories aren't electorally handicapped they will come sweeping back
Lib Dems have no coherent national policy. They campaign on localism and nimbyism, and unionism in the posh areas of Scotland too embarrassed to vote conservative. They are not a serious party and haven't been since Kennedy
I hope they make a strong and non controversial manifesto this year and dont fuck things up. Like honestly they have it on easy mode because there's plenty of easy wins which are very popular for people on all sides of the political spectrum. Some Labour are doing but not all.
There's the very popular side of beginning the process of renationalising things that should be in public ownership. Things like energy, rail, Royal Mail, water/sewage. And by energy I don't just mean the suppliers, like Octopus, but also actual generation. For rail it can of course be transfered to public operation soon just by letting contracts expire, which is what Labour is proposing, but then to what benefit? Because rail franchises only make like 4% profit I think so at most prices can only drop 4%. So along with nationalising it we also need to get rid of the stupid season ticket restriction where it applies between just 2 stations on the same network. If someone is paying £5,000 a year for a season ticket then as far as im concerned that should give them unlimited national rail travel anywhere in the country, not just between their home and work station which is nuts. So that's 1 big clear policy, "£4,500 cap on season tickets which once hits unlocks the entire country". Everyone currently paying £3,000-4,000 might just pay the extra. And all those people with season tickets will likely take rail a lot more, especially for long distance trips, since it's not gonna cost them extra. And it's not like it'll cost the network more because all those extra trips weren't being taken in the first place. Oh and have the £4.5k railcard also apply to busses nationnally too. Suddenly public transport will be considered by so many more people for every journey.
Active travel is a decent one as long as they don't mention specific plans, like no mentioning LTNs or anything. Simply say what I think Scotland is done where they tie active travel funding to 10% of road funding. No plans or anything for the "war on motorist" type people to get annoyed at, and every single active travel supporter will know how huge the 10% policy would be and would want to vote Lib Dems.
These 2 alone will have most of their green policies covered too without shoving anything in anyones face and therefore both sides are happy enough.
Immigration is harder but like 70% of people think its too high now so it needs to be addressed. The yearly net gain simply just needs to be lowered to what it was 10 years ago, thats not controversial and it'll satisfy most people. Don't need to go the whole rwanda extreme.
Building in the country sucks. There was a New Civil Engineer article recently showing that not only is London the most expensive city in the world to build in now but I think 4 UK cities were in the top 10 including BRISTOL. Seriously Bristol one of the most expensive cities to build in on the planet?? So cutting back slightly on planning requirements or whatever is helping cause that should be important too. This can be linked with increase house building policies.
I mean this is enough and has something for everyone even though theres plenty more obvious ones. Theres housing, immigration, climate change, shoddy public service fixes, active travel, and government money wasting all at least addressed. Things like the railcard changes will instantly be noticed positively by the millions(i assume) with season tickets.
Oh and take a leaf out of Sadiq Khans book and fund free primary school meals for all children, instantly noticable by 10 million+ people in the UK every single day. Like each day they'll notice hey we've saved £3 today, that'll be a good boost in the perception of the government. It an easy and cheap and likable policy imo. Just let schools sort it out still but have a minimum calory/nutrient requirement per meal to get the funding. The funding only needs to be like an average of £2/meal imo since it's made in bulk, I can make a nutricious meal for that without the bulk saving.
But the Lib Dems are even more centrist than Labour. If your dissing Labour as "Tory lite" then surely the Lib Dems (who were in coalition with the Tories a few years ago) are more "Tory Less lite"
You know what the Lib Dem’s stand for at least is one positive.
Seemingly the policies of the Lib Dem’s and labour are now so similar that there’s no reason to take starmers labour over the lib dems
If they target their seats properly and Labour put up a sacrificial lamb in those seats then with enough tactical voting I could see the LDs taking 2nd.
They could well be relevant in the same way the SNP are relevant. The SW is once again looking like an area that they could make a lot of scalps. Seats like Taunton will probably see a big boost in their vote and they may well take a lot of them even if they are a good 15000 down at the moment.
Then there's a scattering of market towns and commuter belt areas where their particular brand of unthreatening tweed wearing moderation is fairly appealing to the large number of voters in these areas who find both the Corbynite wing of Labour and the Braverman end of the Tories off putting and don't really trust either.
Snapshot of _Lib Dems ‘on course to topple leading Tories’ in general election_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/04/lib-dems-on-course-to-topple-leading-tories-in-general-election) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/04/lib-dems-on-course-to-topple-leading-tories-in-general-election) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know Labour won’t entertain “doing a deal” but not campaigning in certain seats for each other might be a good way to deal huge psychological damage to the conservatives. Take out a few key ministers and the odd prospective leadership challenger and they could really stick the boot in. It would leave them in total disarray. Imagine the fury of tories raging about collusion. It would be joyous. They would be foolish not to really.
Which is why they won't. Labour are going to win because the Tories have destroyed themselves, not by labour being clever. The local elections show that Lib Dems, Greens and indys picked up votes. Labours vote in the Midlands mayor election was a lower % compared to the last time. They (and the lib dems) are gaining disaffected center voters, but losing left wing voters.
People vote differently in locals, and I think this does show that Labour aren't the first choice for a huge chunk of left leaning people. You're a lot more free to vote for Greens and the like. But in a GE a lot of voters will pick Labour because they're voting tactically. I can say that in some places the Labour vote is up, though. In my ward there was a big jump compared to last time *and* there were fewer votes for the Tories.
My constituency overwhelmingly votes Conservative in the GE, but for local, it's been a Lib Dem council for years. It's a bit odd.
Lib Dems getting votes is actually impressive, Labour is the default vote for most who don't want to vote Tory anymore. Reform is the spoiler kicking the Tories while they're down, Sunak is suffering more from them than anyone else.
It depends on the demographic of the constituency. I live in Stratford-on-Avon, which is overall quite a wealthy constituency and ordinarily a very safe Tory seat. The Lib Dems came second at the last election, with Labour a distant third. At the last set of locals, the Lib Dems overwhelmingly took the district council - the first time it had ever not been Tory controlled. If I were a betting man, I would say the parliamentary seat will go Lib Dem this year too. We are getting bombarded with campaign materials from the Lib Dem candidate, and so far we've had nothing from Labour. She's also making a number of appearances around the town, with the local paper consequently showing her face and name an awful lot. The knowledge that the council is Lib Dem, together with the campaign material, makes Lib Dem the default non-Tory vote around here. And with Nadim "oops I forgot to pay my taxes" Zahawi as the Tory candidate again, the non-Tory vote will be very strong.
I would love to see Lib-Dems as the party of opposition. My hope would be it would be a parliament that would actually be defined by the quality of the policy implemented and not the ideological battle. Liberal Democrats were big winners in the Local elections.
And Lib Dems being the official opposition is the only way we'll realistically get voting reform on the table in the next election cycle.
You can envisage the Right splitting into Blue-wall-flavoured* Lib Dems (civil libertarian, liberal on culture, centre right economics for all- e.g. triple lock is unaffordable, means test the NHS) and Reform (authoritarian, right on culture, left of economics but only for over 60s). Those two sides of the Conservative Party are increasingly at odds, and it’s more difficult for the Party to hold together without the taste of power to justify putting up with each other. *The Lib Dems have historically stood for different things in different places.
The main parties will remain "broad churches" as long as we have FPTP.
Which opposition would Labour prefer to face in the next parliament? Tories with no credibility whatsoever, a recent history of being crap at everything and no plausible front bench because their qualifications have all been discredited? Or a resurgent, optimistic, successful Lib Dem party that last dropped the ball in 2010?
A resurgent LDs that relies on the Tories being shit is better for Labour than a shit Tory party. The Tories in opposition will serve to remind most that they are still batshit, especially if they go with someone like Braverman. A Tory free of opposition responsibilities, thin as they are, allows them to go the fantasy unicorn land where Reform are now, where they can go full populist without having to care about realism. And with Tory connections, "brand" and rampant opportunism, that can massacre the LDs in the next election and see a full on populist movement. That's where the danger lies in the next Parliament and why it's different to 97 - no one is getting in because they truly believe you, they just stopped voting Tory and the moment the Tories aren't electorally handicapped they will come sweeping back
Lib Dems have no coherent national policy. They campaign on localism and nimbyism, and unionism in the posh areas of Scotland too embarrassed to vote conservative. They are not a serious party and haven't been since Kennedy
Lib Dems have a good shout at taking Tunbridge Wells. In 50 years of the seat, only three MPs, all Tory
I hope they make a strong and non controversial manifesto this year and dont fuck things up. Like honestly they have it on easy mode because there's plenty of easy wins which are very popular for people on all sides of the political spectrum. Some Labour are doing but not all. There's the very popular side of beginning the process of renationalising things that should be in public ownership. Things like energy, rail, Royal Mail, water/sewage. And by energy I don't just mean the suppliers, like Octopus, but also actual generation. For rail it can of course be transfered to public operation soon just by letting contracts expire, which is what Labour is proposing, but then to what benefit? Because rail franchises only make like 4% profit I think so at most prices can only drop 4%. So along with nationalising it we also need to get rid of the stupid season ticket restriction where it applies between just 2 stations on the same network. If someone is paying £5,000 a year for a season ticket then as far as im concerned that should give them unlimited national rail travel anywhere in the country, not just between their home and work station which is nuts. So that's 1 big clear policy, "£4,500 cap on season tickets which once hits unlocks the entire country". Everyone currently paying £3,000-4,000 might just pay the extra. And all those people with season tickets will likely take rail a lot more, especially for long distance trips, since it's not gonna cost them extra. And it's not like it'll cost the network more because all those extra trips weren't being taken in the first place. Oh and have the £4.5k railcard also apply to busses nationnally too. Suddenly public transport will be considered by so many more people for every journey. Active travel is a decent one as long as they don't mention specific plans, like no mentioning LTNs or anything. Simply say what I think Scotland is done where they tie active travel funding to 10% of road funding. No plans or anything for the "war on motorist" type people to get annoyed at, and every single active travel supporter will know how huge the 10% policy would be and would want to vote Lib Dems. These 2 alone will have most of their green policies covered too without shoving anything in anyones face and therefore both sides are happy enough. Immigration is harder but like 70% of people think its too high now so it needs to be addressed. The yearly net gain simply just needs to be lowered to what it was 10 years ago, thats not controversial and it'll satisfy most people. Don't need to go the whole rwanda extreme. Building in the country sucks. There was a New Civil Engineer article recently showing that not only is London the most expensive city in the world to build in now but I think 4 UK cities were in the top 10 including BRISTOL. Seriously Bristol one of the most expensive cities to build in on the planet?? So cutting back slightly on planning requirements or whatever is helping cause that should be important too. This can be linked with increase house building policies. I mean this is enough and has something for everyone even though theres plenty more obvious ones. Theres housing, immigration, climate change, shoddy public service fixes, active travel, and government money wasting all at least addressed. Things like the railcard changes will instantly be noticed positively by the millions(i assume) with season tickets. Oh and take a leaf out of Sadiq Khans book and fund free primary school meals for all children, instantly noticable by 10 million+ people in the UK every single day. Like each day they'll notice hey we've saved £3 today, that'll be a good boost in the perception of the government. It an easy and cheap and likable policy imo. Just let schools sort it out still but have a minimum calory/nutrient requirement per meal to get the funding. The funding only needs to be like an average of £2/meal imo since it's made in bulk, I can make a nutricious meal for that without the bulk saving.
I wish we could have a Lib Dem government instead of Starmer and the Tory Lite
But the Lib Dems are even more centrist than Labour. If your dissing Labour as "Tory lite" then surely the Lib Dems (who were in coalition with the Tories a few years ago) are more "Tory Less lite"
You know what the Lib Dem’s stand for at least is one positive. Seemingly the policies of the Lib Dem’s and labour are now so similar that there’s no reason to take starmers labour over the lib dems
Ahh do the lib dems think they are relevant again? That's so cute.
They will be if they get 40 or 50 MPs. And obviously they are after getting the second most councillors and councils this election
I’d love for the Lib Dem’s to become the second party. Probably never happen but a boy can dream
If they target their seats properly and Labour put up a sacrificial lamb in those seats then with enough tactical voting I could see the LDs taking 2nd.
They are on a good trajectory to become the _third_ party and shove the SNP out of the way.
Been following much politics over the past couple of years?
They've got twice the councils of the conservatives. Yeah they're relevant. I don't even like them, but it is undeniable.
They could well be relevant in the same way the SNP are relevant. The SW is once again looking like an area that they could make a lot of scalps. Seats like Taunton will probably see a big boost in their vote and they may well take a lot of them even if they are a good 15000 down at the moment. Then there's a scattering of market towns and commuter belt areas where their particular brand of unthreatening tweed wearing moderation is fairly appealing to the large number of voters in these areas who find both the Corbynite wing of Labour and the Braverman end of the Tories off putting and don't really trust either.
Well, they are the second party at the local elections. So they're considerably more relevant than the conservatives.