Exactly. And that’s not even going into the psephology of it, LD MPs are notoriously sticky and hard to shift if they’re doing their jobs as constituency MPs, because they (we) have so few actual seats defending them is actually easier. Also worth noting that the evidence points to the LD vote holding up much better in May 2011 in areas where there’s a sitting MP, lots of work going in to seeing if that’s actually true and if so why (I have my explanations but strangely am going to keep them within party for now).

Point three is crucial, really crucial, I’ve seen nothing, at all, to tempt me to think of voting Labour at any point soon-boundary changes will likely put me in a very tight Lab/Con marginal instead of a 3-way, Labour will need to win tactical votes from me and those like me if they’re to get back in, and I see nothing from them that’s useful. A mea culpa is possibly too much to expect but at least some policies I like I can’t get out of this Govt.

If the LibDems have to rely on the words of a paranoid hysteric like Dorries to shore up their credibility then they really will be in trouble.

In the polling booths in May 2015, I expect people will be thinking about their own economic situation rather more than whatever Nadine Dorries said four years earlier. They’ll have endured five years of Tory austerity – quite possibly under Japanese-style stagnation – and they’ll be ready to punish those responsible. What else would one expect in such circumstances? The centre-left side of their former base is hardly going to thank them.

The LibDems will lose votes in 2015. Almost certainly a great deal of votes. And if those lost progressive voters don’t like Labour, they’ll either vote for an independent, a minor party (e.g. the Greens), or just stay at home. There’s no reason to think they’ll go back to the party that betrayed them last time, just because Labour isn’t offering them enough as an alternative.

I agree that Labour should do more to reach out to disillusioned LibDem voters. And I agree that Labour is by no means guaranteed a majority by virtue of the LibDem’s collapse. On the other hand, the Tories haven’t won a workable commons majority since 1987, and haven’t won more than 40% of the vote since 1992. So you Labour folk should feel cautiously confident about 2015.

YES to number three in particular.

I think Labour’s big mistake is that they are used to automatically having the moral highground, being the party of the left/the poor/the ethical/etc.

This is not something they have an automatic claim to however, and after Iraq, detention without trial, a huge rise in Islamophobia, the 10p tax rate debacle, bailing out the banks, introducing tuition fees in the first place, contracting Atos in the first place and failing to stand up for disabled/mentally ill/etc people now, Iraq, Iraq, and did I mention Iraq, an awful lot of voters are not ready to forgive them yet.

Have the Lib Dems done anything comparable to cosying up to George W Bush yet?

Lib Dem voters are NOT just protest voters or ex-Labour voters or whatever. There are unique LIBERAL, as opposed to leftist, concerns. Labour can try to win yellow voters over, or they can ignore them, but they shouldn’t expect to just automatically pick up votes from people without actually addressing these unique concerns.

It all depends on how much Labour want the Lib Dems to be wiped out. The Libs have certainly given them enough ammunition to do the job but it will only happen if Labour use it. Public anger at the Libs isn’t going to be visceral at election time as it was during the tuition fees protests.

So yes it is simplistic to think the lib dems will forever be lost in the wilderness but there is plenty Labour can do to stall or prevent their revovery.

If Labour want to destroy the Lib Dems they have a very simple method of doing so – become more liberal. I know plenty of people who would happily have voted Labour if it wasn’t for all of Labour’s illiberal approaches over the previous decade.

They’ll have endured five years of Tory austerity – quite possibly under Japanese-style stagnation – and they’ll be ready to punish those responsible.

This may be true, but at present most people consider that it’s the Labour party that are responsible. The presence of Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor goes a long way towards guaranteeing that this happy state of affairs continues.

I wrote this nearly a year ago, and I stand by it:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/13/the-libdems-belgium-problem/

I think what may save the LibDems will actually be turnout, which I suspect will be way down in 2015ish. I think a lot of people will probably loathe the government by then, but won’t be that impressed by Labour either. So vote share will fall across the board, and the collapse of the LibDem vote won’t look nearly as bad as it otherwise would.

Number 3 really surprised me, and not something I’d really thought about.

However, it is completely true. I see Labour doing nothing for the Liberal left, the floaters haven’t been firmed up.

Measures like the minimum wage tax lift that was proposed by DA today, should hopefully bring those back the LDs if we set it down as a clear aspiration.

Number 2 is also an excellent point. I always think back to 2005. Post Iraq War, and Labour on tuition fees. Against all be it an ineffective tory opposition. But if we face down an ineffective Labour opposition then we may well benefit from a short memoried electorate.

Although “never under-estimate Labour’s incredible ability to miss an open goal” is a pretty good rule in British politics.

There is bitterness at what is seen as a betrayal by a lot of first-time LibDem voters last time. That never goes away.

3) Is not a guarantee they’ll vote libdem. The left are *staying at home* Witness the debacle of the local elections and referendum!

This is why I argue labour need to make it clear they’re of the left, ffs.

@6

Of course, every incoming government blames the previous one for various things, and often with good reason. But after a full term the line wears thin, and starts to look like excuse-making. The coalition will have full-ownership of the state of the economy come 2015. And oppositions don’t win elections. Governments lose them.

@6

“This may be true, but at present most people consider that it’s the Labour party that are responsible. The presence of Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor goes a long way towards guaranteeing that this happy state of affairs continues.”

While Labour should share some responsibility, I don’t know many countries that are having a good time economically right now. Also, the Tory party hardly protested about Gordon Brown’s spending plans until after the recession began. That was mainly left to Vince Cable.

I don’t know what “most people” think, I would imagine that they don’t trust either Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems on the economy. If they did all blame the Labour Party, wouldn’t the Tories have won outright in 2010?

Richard @12

If they did all blame the Labour Party, wouldn’t the Tories have won outright in 2010?

Well, Labour did get the lowest vote share since 1983, but it doesn’t follow that the Tories should have won-the Lib Dems also got a record high vote share creating a NOC Parliament, hence the situation we’re in. Labour clearly, explicitly, lost the election, the big problem is that voters (sensibly in my view) didn’t trust anyone.

I’ve always argued in favour of coalitions and against single party rule, I think we benefit from that, and the current situation is the least worst outcome given the way the votes fell.

Oh, on the “Tory austerity” point? The IFS says the Tories planned to reduce spending by 96bn by 2015, that the Labour party planned to reduce by £82bn by 2015 and the LDs by £80bn by 2015. They say the Govt is actually planning to reduce spending by £81bn, between the LD and Labour position but nowhere near the Tory position.

I vehemently oppose some of the measures being taken, but the overall scale and scope appears, given the actual situation we’re in, to be about right, and is very close to what Labour said they were planning. Many Tories have an ideological commitment to reducing the size of state spending. They’ve been stopped. For that, I’m quite grateful.

1 – You had me until the last bit. It is up to you to decide whether you prefer the LDs to be in partnership with a Labour government or a Tory one. That is a choice for you to make. If you choose the Tories, then it is no-one’s fault (if that is the right word), but your own. However, a second LD/Tory coalition will forever make the LDs a party of the centre right and Labour will be better off looking elsewhere for partnerships, perhaps with the nationalist parties and the Greens.

13 – After the election, the LDs and the Tories engaged in a systematic programme of talking the economy down to pave the way for the spending cuts being planned. That triggered the slowdown as people and businesses lost confidence in the face of a tide of government-delivered “bad news” (even though things – unemployment, growth etc – were actually improving), which has now been exacerbated by the nature of the cuts imposed as well as the situaiton elsewhere.

By playing the Tory game after the election the LDs did a lot of damage that could have been avoided. It’s good to see them doing a lot better now and it is certainly the case that without them the rabid tendency of the Tory Party would be in the ascendant, so we have a lot to thank them for. But that first year really was a shocker. Chris Huhne sharting a platform with Lady Warsi to denounce Labour was probably the nadir.

JW, are you seriously saying that you think the recession didn’t start until after the election? Either you’re not being clear or you’re utterly bonkers, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming I’m misunderstanding you though.

Problem with your analysis (and I’m mostly in agreement that the way the cuts have been massively overstated by all sides really isn’t helping confidence) is that the necessity and need for cuts was clearly being discussed during and before the election as well. The real argument before and during the campaign wasn’t really about ‘how much’ but about ‘when’ and ‘how fast’. But even Labour were planning to be cutting significantly by now.

@2 In 2010 we lib dems gained a million votes and lost seats. In 2015 we could lose 2 million votes or more and yet still retain enough of our seats to be in a position of influence in a hung parliament. These are the vagaries of first past the post and you ignore them at your peril.

As someone who voted Lib Dem in 2010 (and used to be a party member), I’ll comment on your three points in turn:

1. I don’t think that poster would convince me to vote Lib Dem again. All it’s saying is they’ve stopped the Tories from enacting their nastier policies. But if the Lib Dems think the Tories are so nasty, why did they go in coalition with them?

2. You’re right that the polls are showing the LDs higher than at their lowest point. I expect this recovery with continue somewhat. But they’ll still be below their 2010 level.

3. I agree very much. As a former Lib Dem voter who doesn’t like the Tories, I’m exactly the sort of person Labour should find easy to persuade. But so far Ed Miliband has done precious little to persuade me. What he needs now is policies on:

a. affordable housing. A house costs £70k to build and £200k to buy. Why should a first-time buyer be forced to line the pockets of the rich to the tune of £130k?

b. marginal tax rates on the poor. Someone coming off benefits can face very high marginal rates, sometimes >100%. These should be reduced, ideally to 0% for the first 50 quid a week.

c. civil liberties. In particular the provisions of Labour’s Digital Economy Act, which imposes collective punishment without trial on alleged file sharers.

d. proportional representation, or as I prefer to call it, democratic representation.

I note that the last Labour government’s record on all four of these areas was rubbish; if Miliband wants to persuade people that Labour has changed, these are issues he needs to address.

If Labour want to destroy the Lib Dems they have a very simple method of doing so – become more liberal.

That’s harder said than done, so long as the defining voices as to what count as liberal are owned by the capitalised Liberals.

For example, New Labour had, it is generally agreed, a horrid record on civil liberties. So a property criminal might get a two year prison sentence when, careful studies show, it would be better for society for them to have had an extra pass through in-community schemes. But, largely because of fear of the Murdoch press leading to a failure of political leadership, the necessary work to put in place trial schemes, increased probation funding and so on was never successfully followed through.

Meanwhile under the coalition, the same person will get a four year sentence, in the context of cuts to police and local council budgets. But the Lib Dems will be able to argue that if it wasn’t for them, they would have had an 8 year sentence, and massive cuts to the budgets.

Similar considerations apply to evicting travellers, bombing foreigners, or any other form of illiberality not prohibitively expensive or specifically symbolically identified with the old government.

On the face of it, succeeding in achieving a 4 year cut in sentence is obviously preferable to failing to achieve a 1 year cut. So it is going to be easy for Lib Dems to continue to present themselves as more liberal than the opposition. Which means that those who identify as liberal will trust what they say, no matter how much a naive examination of the facts might seem to lead to the opposite conclusion.

This is a bad start but I always thought the UK getting used to coalition might be a good thing eventually compared to what has gone on before.

@13 – Except HOW the cuts are being done are massively, massively more damaging, and many will cost more money in the longer term…but they fill a Tory ideological objective.

And that’s ignoring many government service end-user prices increases, high inflation, near-zero growth…

@18 – Erm…are you including the price of the land there?

And… if Labour don’t appeal to you by the next elecrion, then…will you vote? (For a major party anyway)

I don’t think anyone involved in education will ever forgive the Liberal Democrats for tuition fees. Yes, people have short memories but some betrayals cut too deep.

If they block the NHS reforms in the Lords, then their half-hearted opposition in the Commons might be forgotten – but if not, few will ever forgive the accelerated privatisation of the National Health Service that they have enabled.

Point three – as others have said – is spot on.

Labour is taking progressives for granted – which doesn’t bode well if they win the next election.

I’ve just joined the Green Party and I know many others who have joined in the last few months because we have no faith in Labour as a party as a whole (even though there are many good people on the Labour left).

@22 – Yes, it was the lies which did it. I mean, let’s be fair here – the Tories could have allowed a free vote and Labour (whose report it was) would have backed them, so no party has it’s hands clean of this disaster…

…but it was still the LibDems who *lied* about it!

Labour is acting as if the left will come out and vote for it. They didn’t at the last election, and they won’t unless Labour returns to it’s left-wing roots.

The greens are not an option for me, because their irrational, dangerous energy policy is of the far, far authoritarian right. So I probably won’t be voting…

@21,

@18 – Erm…are you including the price of the land there?

Land for housing is only expensive because of planning laws making it so. There is no shortage of land in the UK; the argument that we need land for farming is a false one because Britain hasn’t been self-sufficient in food for almost 2 centuries.

And… if Labour don’t appeal to you by the next elecrion, then…will you vote? (For a major party anyway)

I live in what was a Lab/LD marginal at the 2010 election, although the SNP won the seat in May. Whoever I vote for, I won’t be letting the Tories in, because they have no chance in the constituency (of course, the boundaries may change). I’ll probably vote for whoever is the lesser evil, based on what policies they favour at the time.

I may well vote SNP, since I think an independent Scotland could be very successful. (Whether it would be successful is another question entirely!)

@24 – Regardless (and I disagree, but it’s a side issue), you made a very specific claim about “lining pockets”. Given the very real cost of the land, the profits are far lower than the 130K you have claimed.

It’s dishonest to claim that.

I also won’t vote for the lesser evil, if it’s not Hastur. (Bad joke yes, but still)

Scotland’s independence would be a disaster for Britain, even if it was a good thing for Scotland… I can’t see myself or most of my family staying in a permanently right-wing state, which would quickly leave the EU and try Prohibition-era type moral statements.

Leon, Phil’s right to say that the cost of land to build on is overwhelmingly problematic due to planning restrictions. There’s been some great work on this done by a few economists in the area of late, Tim Leunig’s stuff is particularly well thought through. We could significantly reduce housing costs if we free up land to build on, including rezoning commercial land for housing in some areas.

Also? Look at the England only voting, sure, the Tories win a plurality of seats, but definitely not votes. Unless you’re one of those extremists who actually believes the Lib Dems and some of the Labour leadership are also very right wing as opposed to centrists or centre left of course, in which case there’ll be no persuading you.

I, personally, don’t want to see Britain broken up, I think the union benefits both countries, but I’m thinking it might be inevitable-which is one of the reasons I’m beginning to change my mind on a bloody English Parliament-set it up early and it can be done by the same voting system used in Holyrood and Cardiff, etc.

MatGB; After the Tories have gerrymandered this time, pruned the voter roles, gerrymandered again, had their social cleansing and all the other measures designed to produce votes for them?

No, I don’t believe for a moment that they don’t command a plurality of the vote will stop them from hanging on to power for good.

I have zero, nada, no attachment to England separate from Britain, as a third-gen immigrant.

(Meanwhile, Labour is *still* playing the centralist game and the Libdems on the left seem to be doing nothing effective to stop the Libdems on the right…)

It’s rather sad to read that being in a bad political relationship, playing puppet to the tory master, is considered a worthy ambition. Desperately clinging on to a bad relationship, no matter how much damage you may suffer, is trhe habit of addiction. The bag-head who stays in the grip of the dealer, willing to sell his arse for a hit. The woman who gets a kicking when united lose, depending on her tormenter for any sense of love, however twisted. The lib-dems scrambling over each other, eager to be seen and heard all, addicted to the sense of political importance, the fame, the sweet taste of power, intoxicating certainly, but damaging if abused. Get some help, kick the habit. You have a choice, be the Amy Winehouse of parliamentary politics, such a waste of what could have been. Or, you could be the music of Amy Winehouse, honest and upfront, true to what you believe and feel in your heart. Always remember, the actions of this coalition government will be the deciding factor in a general election. Your leadership signed on the dotted line, the polling booth will be the place where they will be judged by their act of betrayal. The only surefire way to dodge the bullet is to break the chains of the coalition, force the election and prove to the people that Liberal Democrat principles are based on true compassion and a desire to enhance every life, not just so many platitudes and false promises designed to appeal to the right people, in the right numbers, to make a hung parliament your best bet. As for labour and Ed Miliband, so far his report card says he could do a lot better. The party itself needs to consider that maybe they need to care less about staying ‘on message’, so as not to ruin the chance of a shadow cabinet job, and care more about telling the leadership that being of the left is all about standing up for those who can only fight for a short time, relying on people like the labour party to be there, backing them up.

“Voters have short memories”

…welcome to the age of the internet, a reminder is just a click away…I really wouldn’t bank on it…the Liberals will get politically raped at the next election and after may the panic will begin…

…I’m just a normal Joe with no particular political affiliation, apart from I am rarely minded to vote Troy…but you don’t need to be a whether man to know which way the wind’s blowing…

16 – The recession was over by the time the election was held. Since the new government took over we have had no growth or, at best, anaemic growth. In the weeks and months up to the first full budget consumer and business confidence collapsed in the UK because of a relentless tide of bad news delivered by the government. Without government posturing designed to prepare people for big cuts confidence would not have been so badly dented. The LDs played along with the Tory’s ideological game and the country has suffered more than it had to as a consequence. There would be more people with jobs and more busnesses still afloat without that deliberate programme of bad-mouthing the UK economy during the summer and autumn of 2010.

A lot of us who voted LD last May to keep the Tories out could just about understand why the LDs went into coalition with the Tories. What was inexplicable was the relish with which they stood by the Tories as they played their ideological games that had the direct consequence of reducing living standards and raising unemployment. There was always going to be pain, of course, but it did not have to be as bad as it has been, or as bad as it is going to get. Thankfully the LDs seem to have learned a few lessons over the last few months. But the time up to the AV election was horrific.

I’m an ex-liberal voter and can guarantee I will not be returning to the fold anytime soon. There are not two separate parties in power there is just ONE coalition, which means collective responsibility. Despite any minor achievements the LibDems still have to bear the responsibility for the current situation; massive public sector job losses, rising youth unemployment, the tuition fees debacle, withdrawal of the FJF and EMA, the stagnant economy. And despite conference refusing to discuss it the very real and legitimate concerns still around the NHS reforms.

It’s no use blaming the previous government either. The coalition has been in power for 18 months and all this is happening on your watch. Being driven forward by your support. So don’t expect voters to come back in droves, There is still a lot of anger simmering beneath the surface.

Collective responsibility: means it’s your fault as well.

@31 The cuts implemented so far are the same ones that Labour had already set in motion. The coalition’s cuts won’t be until this year.

I think the comments on the electoral system are well made.

The Liberal Democrats could lose a million votes and still retain all or most of the seats they hold. In fact they could increase the number of seats they hold even with a reduced number of votes and a reduced national vote share. First Past the Post, especially with a low turn out, is a bit of a lottery.

Concentrated local efforts will have a big impact on the fortunes of the Lib Dems.

I also wouldn’t underestimate the risk to Labour of losing votes to the Greens and to the BNP and coming second in a significant number of marginal seats.

There is also a long time to go to the next election and plenty of events, dear boy, still to happen.

There is also the exciting possibility that the last UK general election will have been the last UK general election ever.

JW, see what you mean, yes. And I actually broadly agree, I’ve criticised Osborne and others (especially the Labour frontbench) for talking up how big the problem is and how big the cuts are, when the reality is very different, and I agree that the hit to confidence caused by the rhetoric isn’t helping. OTOH, given the ongoing international crisis with most countries experiencing low to zero growth I don’t think, given our status as a trading nation very linked to international affairs (and especially our reliance on, say, Ireland as a trading partner/export market) that the rhetoric is the only problem-it’s made it worse, but I think we’d be in a very poor position now regardless. I also, personally, think we did dodge a bullet in terms of fiscal stability given the mess other countries have gotten into during the crisis, our deficit remains bigger than some of those now in massive trouble and expected to default, and some of the rhetoric has helped in that regard.

Danny, you’re right that that’s possible, but I don’t think it’s likely, Salmond is hoping for a referendum to endorse the start of negotiations, given he’s timetabling that late there’s no way it can be ready by the next GE. And even then I still doubt total victory for his position.

And even then I still doubt total victory for his position.

But, but, but what about the Arc of Prosperity! Surely if the economic crisis has proved anything it’s that the best thing to be is a small country on the periphery of the Eurozone!

…Lib Dem are in denial…the people will not forget and with a failing economy they will achieve little in this Coalition and get all the blame…

…I have voted Lid Dem in the past, mainly in the locals, but if they turn up on my door step they are going to get chased…I won’t forget and the way they go on just makes them look arrogant imo…

Voters have short memories?

With three kids, one of university age now, one next year and another the year after, I won’t forget the rise in tuition fees. Their tuition policy was one of the reasons I voted for them at the last election and encouraged my son at uni and voting for the first time to do the same. We won’t make that mistake while there is a Liberal MP in parliament who didn’t vote against this governments current tuition policy because, with the current recession, I am currently in the position where I cannot afford to help any of my children pursue a university education and in all probability they will not get one as I did.

Lazarus, if you’re on average or below family income, can I suggest you get the middle child to take a gap year so they fall under the new system completely?

Because the return of maintenance grants and the massive increase in the post-graduation repayment threshold will make them much better off while studying and for some time after graduation, and that grant will be a significant improvement on current students who’re entirely reliant on the loan and parental help.

I hate the headline fee increase, but the rest of the package, especially the much better repayment terms, are a massive improvement on the current setup.

When I studied, I had to borrow money to pay the rent and food, and work in a shop to pay for anything else, which caused my grades to suffer. Grant plus loan means students will be able to actually support themselves and not need to work on top for the first time in decades.

“I am currently in the position where I cannot afford to help any of my children pursue a university education”

Luckily, you don’t need to. That’s what the loan system is for.

I suspect that the LDs wll sink badly in the next election but they will be back. The main driver for LD success is the sheer crapness of the Labour and conservative parties. There are no signs this is going to change therefore the LDs do have a future. Maybe they will be stronger for the experience of being in government.

@40

I think the main benefit to Lib Dems of the Coalition is that it will allow then to kill off the perception that they’re too inexperienced and too wooly to handle the rigours of government.

@39 – If they’re stupid enough to pay UK prices from next year, they should not be in University. Oxbridge only excepted. I say this as a university teacher…there are plenty of better opportunities abroad (many of which are zero-tuition!)

The average voter turnout in the past war period upto 1997 was75%, when the Liberals (as they were) vote was 17% in 1964 and dipped in 1979 to 14% ( they also go up 3% at lelection times, including 1979)

excluding the 2 elections when they had the SDP take approxiamtely 3million votes form labour,
Look at the 2001 elelction when voter turnout fell to 60% the Libdem percentage wnet up form 17% to 20%, but their actual vote harldy went up at all, the other thignwas the 2005 election when tehy went upt o22% ,but that was due to the Iraq war, and althoguht their actual vote went up in 2010 their percentage didn’t go up,

the other thing is ,that half the people who voted Libdem at teh aslt eoection’s sercond choice was laobur and halfs was tory ,so all thats really happened is, that the libdem voters who’s second choice was Laobur have gone over to laobur, had we had a lab/Liberal gov’t now then the could have seen haldf their votes go to the toires now.

@42. Leon Wolfson: “I say this as a university teacher…there are plenty of better opportunities abroad (many of which are zero-tuition!)”

Where are we up to now in the UK, Leon, say 40% of 18 year olds entering higher education and a few more striving but failing? When the entry level was ~10% (1970s/1980s), we could assume that they were children/relatives of graduates or of aspirants. When entry level reached 20%, they were probably posh-ish kids. But when you get to 40% there are more offspring of aspirational parents.

With sincerity, though, who could say to son/daughter that s/he would get a better education by attending an EU university? It is a posh, knowledgable opportunity. I say this as an academic-related colleague.

@44 – We’re *down* to a lower percentage entering university than 10 years ago. And that’s going to sharply fall. Meanwhile, we’re plummeting down the tables of % of graduates, since other countries have seriously upped their game while we have stood still!

I can say with all seriousness, that £9k UK fees are not worth it. Go to Oxbridge or go abroad.

45. Leon Wolfson: ” Meanwhile, we’re plummeting down the tables of % of graduates, since other countries have seriously upped their game while we have stood still!”

Is that the purpose of education? Numbers and statistics? We both known that society benefits from young people re-entering education.

@46 – The number of jobs needing degrees isn’t going to fall. If the UK can’t and won’t provide the numbers, then other EU countries will for us.

Matt @40

Thanks for the advice, it is something I will have to look into soon but unfortunately we are not considered a low income family though it is starting to feel like it.

2) Voters have short memories.

Not in Scotland, voters up here hold grudges for generations as the Tory party can testify. More than 2 decades after Thatcher the Scottish Tories are seriously considering disolving and creating a completely new party instead to remove the toxicity associated with her time in office.

The Lib Dems are in serious danger of following the Tories into political oblivion north of the border, of course thats a decision for you part to make if they think believe it’s a price worth paying for office in Westminster