Labour tried reaching out. Farron turned it down like a petulant brat (http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-why-would-any-sane-progressive-give-labour-a-second-glance-22383.html#comments). Reaching out goes both ways, and the Lib Dems would be wise to realise that.

However, given the general unpopularity of the Tories currently, they can expect to see their vote share increase closer to the election.

Can they? Is the economy going to improve significantly? Clearly policymakers are still searching in vain for the answers, and after four years of this financial crisis the mood is more apocalyptic than optimistic. Is austerity going to get less painful? No, its barely begun. And given those conditions, are the Tories likely to do better than the paltry 36% they were able to poll, under the most favourable circumstances imaginable, in 2010?

Put simply, are the Tories – unable to shake off their toxic reputation and after five years of stagnation and cuts – going to put in their best performance in a general election for 20 years? I’m prepared to be surprised, but on the evidence available at the moment, I’m guessing not.

@Emma Burnell – Fair point. Think quite a bit has changed since this time last year though, esp. in regard to dynamic between Coalition parties.

@David Wearing – You may be right, but going in to an election hoping the others will drop votes may not be the best approach. It’s hard to be certain exactly how the economy and jobs will be in three and a half years time.

Too soon. This is something to be considering 12-18 months, max, before an election. Right now, beating the LibDems with a stick for signing on with the Tories is far more productive.

Mike – In an interview after his speech, Andrew Neil forced Farron to admit that the ‘Con-Dem’ coalition might continue into the next parliament if the 2015 election results closely resembles last year’s, which if not likely, can hardly be dismissed as inconceivable.

In which case Labour’s No to AV will only have themselves to blame.

@5 – You mean the result which under the gerrymandered boundaries with AV would give the Conservatives a clear majority?

It won’t though, the LibDems are way and gone, and it’s their own fault. The next election is Labour’s to win or lose, depending if they remember their roots or just fight over Tory fringe voters, respectively.

Lots of big assumptions in the OP

1 – why assume lefties are more numerous in the Lib Dems than righties? So many lefties have jumped ship that it is hard to work out what is so leftie about the ones who remain.

2 – why would the tories jump back? Weighed down by economic turmoil, Gordon Brown, and 13 years of governance – Labour were at a low and the tories still only got 37% of the vote. What will make them more popular next time?

3 – Just because you like some lib-dem-ish policies (and lets not forget, they only pretend to have policies at election time, as evidenced in 2010) does not make them progressive or mean Labour, a movement embodying millions of people and opinions, should thus be doing. Labour is not a party that serves you as an individual any more than the tories are.

Also…

How would any party get close to the lib dems without risking toxification by their awful brand?

Labour activists and Tory activists agree on little while campaigning at elections – but conventionally both agree each side of that divide are better than lib dem activitists. With such anger at the dispicable nature of the Lib Dem grass roots campaign machine, and among the public at the betrayal of their mandate by the top of the party – how would being close to lib dems serve any party electorally?

If a deal must be done after an election – then maybe a case for nose-holding can be made. But moving towards it before votes are cast seems like a recipe for losing votes.

@5

if lib dems and tories are already thinking of a coalition beyond 2015 – surely that vindicates Labour members who voted “no”, fearing that it would mean a tory government forever more? (all be it one with the figleaf of lib dems attached?

Why would the need for a coalition under FPTP or under AV result in a different coalition instinct among lib dems?

@Emma – Tim wrote his article in the context of Ed Miliband trying to persuade Lib Dem members to defect to Labour. If Ed Miliband were to succeed, then only the Orange Book Liberals would be left, and certainly Tim Farron’s wing of the party would be weakened.
For now the Orange Book Liberals are in the minority and from now on it depends on whether the reforms being made by the government are considered a success. The party voted 10-1 against Free Schools and Academies so they will need a lot of persuading.
It is always a problem with party politics. Because it is competitive it is hard for political parties to talk to each other. Far easier to demonise each other, which in itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

@6 Anyone can call electoral boundaries that are unfavourable to them gerrymandered. Personally I think its electoral system that is gerrymandered in favour of Labour & Conservative. Fact is it takes significantly fewer votes to elect Labour MPs than Tory or Lib Dem. surely not even you will argue with that.

@8 Sorry – acknowledging that if last year’s parliamentary arithmatic repeats itself we will probably see a repeat of the coalition is just a natural statement. If we pretend it was a one-off than we are setting ourselves up for a fall when confronted with an uncomfortable reality, like over tuition fees. A different electoral system would give Lib Dems more seats, and therefore we would be in a stronger position to negotiate a coalition.

@9 When did we vote 10-1 against Free Schools & Academies?

@7

Two things.

First of all, there are just as many “lefties” in the party as there always were and party membership is significantly up since 2009.

Secondly, the Labservatives always moan about what activists such as myself get up too but to me that just proves how utterly outdated the Labservatives are. We do well on the doorstep through listening to people, responding to their concerns and staying in touch all year round. If Labour had put a quarter of the effort into listening to people that the Lib Dems do then maybe they wouldn’t have lost the last election.

@7 in reference to your points:

1. It’s not an exact science – but not too many right inclined Lib Dems – Clegg, Laws, Alexander, Browne… Maybe Ed Davey? Any others?

2. See answer 3 above. Depends on economic situation and what Osborne can offer in his final budget.

3. Which of the five policies suggested do you not like? Also civil liberties aside, the other suggestions are more focussed on society and community than on the individual…

Finally – this isn’t about “doing a deal”‘- it’s about policy development – and understanding the implications of this.

@12 – If there’s anyone claiming to the left in the party, then not only do I not believe them, but given the LibDem participation in things like social cleansing, I want them far, far away from any genuinely left-wing party in the future, they’re likely to try and infiltrate and move it to the right.

They’re social darwinists, and I’ll call you and people like you on it at every occasion (and please do get angry, it proves my point PERFECTLY)

@10 – It’s gerrymandered because of the VERY tight boundaries used, which deliberately favour the Tories and disrupt other parties. A little more flexibility would have ended up with a better system…but I also oppose ANY change not linked to introducing at least partial PR, so…

A PR system would *shatter* the existing parties, as it did in New Zealand. And rightly so!

“We do well on the doorstep through listening to people, responding to their concerns and staying in touch all year round”

And yet you still had the shit kicked out of you in May.

“Secondly, the Labservatives always moan about what activists such as myself get up too but to me that just proves how utterly outdated the Labservatives are.”

It’s true, we’ve been lamentably backward in adopting modern campaigning methods like lying through bar charts.

Overlap on the EU? Blair and Brown presided over a government that very careful distanced us from the EU. That means no freedom of travel becuase they wouldn’t join Schengen and the enormous costs of our basket case currency because they wouldn’t join the euro (a huge success despite the screaming of the UK press).

Labour has been disastrously anti-EU. That, along with Labour’s insistence on attacking freedom everywhere it found it, is why the LibDems should keep well away.

“However Labour could go further by… backing raising of the Personal Allowance… these are progressive policies which Labour should be pursuing anyway ”

Dear God. It really is starting to look as if the battle is lost on this one.

The original Lib Dem policy of raising the PA to £10,000 was bad enough – a £15 billion cut in direct taxation, funded largely by a £12 billion hike in VAT, with more than half that money ending up in the pockets of households in the top half of the income distribution and only 10% or so being used for the stated purpose of ‘lifting low-paid people out of tax’. The regressive nature of the policy has been exposed by everyone from the IPPR to the IFS to David Willetts (back when the Tory Right were pushing for the same policy under Michael Howard); mid-to-high-income households on £40,000, £60,000, £80,000 benefit to the tune of £1,400 a year, while low-income households on £6,000, £12,000, £18,000 benefit by smaller amounts or not at all.

And we now seem to be on a slippery slope. Already there’s talk from the Lib Dems of raising the PA to £12,500. Then it will be £15,000, then £17,500, then £20,000.

Every time we’ll be told this is a way of helping the low paid; every time the beneficiaries will be fewer and better off; and every time tax revenues will fall by another £10 billion or so, putting further pressure on the budgets for the public services and benefits (like tax credits) that really do make a difference to low-income households.

I really hope Labour have the balls to make this argument before we all sleepwalk even further into a low-tax, low-spending right-wing Utopia.

I love it! reaching out so labour can win another election, and labour will win a massive land slide in 2015, after 50 years watching politics and political parties especially labour as a member of 46 years, you have about as much chance of winning the next election after Brown and with Miliband as me winning the Lottery and I do not buy tickets.

The problem is if tied again in 4 years time the Tories would say to the Liberals let play the game again, while labour will be saying we did not mean to slag you off.

The liberals have nothing to lose if we have another hung government it will be Labour who will do the grovelling., or of course it will be Labour in the coalition with the Tories.

@10

I apoligise – I misread that comment, and yes, although the electoral maths is likely to be very different (not least because the Lib Dems have seen support utterly collapse) – you are right that acknowledging a hypothetical possibiolity is not itself a statement of intent.

sorry

GWP

I tend to think memberships are a tiny proportion of a party. There are (for the largest three at least) millions of non-member but utterly-aligned voters – most of the left leaning among which have jumped ship from the Lib Dems in the last years. (as evidenced by poll after poll after poll, and especially the Ashcroft polls, as reported all the time on http://www.ukpolling.co.uk

@13

on the first point – i was refering more widely than elected figures. Sorry.

on the second point – I agree entirely – that stuff may make some difference – but assuming a bounce back above a popularity they achieved against Gordon Brown is presumptuous.

on the third point – I don’t disagree with any of the policies as such (though greater care to civil liberties is a bit wishy-washy rather than tangible) – but politics is about the prioritising the many desires of millions of people. simply listing a bunch of policies as things Labour should be pursuing is, again, rather presumptuous.

@18 – Proposal above is certainly not to fund an increase in P.A. with a VAT hike – far from it. Above suggestion includes proposals for a land tax and mansion tax – which could raise significant funds to be diverted to those on low incomes (perhaps with tax credits as you mention). The P.A. is only one small part of overall tax policy – think should be more emphasis on behavioural taxes (e.g. littering, chewing gum, pollution, possibly unhealthy food), rather than simply being obsessed with income tax.

I wouldn’t hug a Liberal without a biohazard suit. Labour should make it clear that a vote for a Liberal is a vote for a Tory government. After Clegg’s lies the public won’t believe a word from any politician of any party at the next election

Chris at 17 – One of the few brilliant things Gordon Brown did, for which we should all (Labour, Tory, Libdem) thank him daily is refuse to let the UK join the Euro. Our economic situation is quite different from the PIIGS and largely because we still control our currency and it responds to our economic position and not someone else’s. I speak as a non-Labour person.

23

Of course there are more and less progressive ways to reform the overall tax and benefits system, and a rise in the PA has to be seen in context. In its present context (cuts to tax credits and other benefits, cuts to public services, cuts to corporation tax, and the rise in VAT) it looks particularly ugly.

But a significant rise in the PA is never going to be “only one small part of overall tax policy”; the sums involved mean it’s bound to be a very large part. Take the Lib Dems’ latest proposal to raise the PA to £12,500. According to the IPPR, that would cost £24bn a year. *Maybe* you could plug that gap by introducing an LVT, raising CGT, lowering the 50p threshold to £100,000, introducing new green taxes etc. etc. – but if we *could* raise that sort of money through such measures, would we really have nothing better to spend it on? I mean, fair enough if we think it’s a priority to boost the incomes of low-to-middle earners, and so put extra money into the tax credits system or childcare provision (say) – but £12 billion-plus of tax cuts for people in the top half of the income distribution? Seriously?

@ 26 – Agree in many ways. Should be a complete review of how tax is raised and spent – and it should be diverted to key priorities / groups. Wasn’t aware that the £12,500 proposal would cost £24 billion – clearly a huge amount of money. You could theoretically means test the P.A. if you wanted to anyway – no reason not to consider this…

I think I might be missing something here, but last time the personal allowance was raised, the upper threshold was lowered in order to ensure that only basic rate payers benefited. My own view is that the Lib Dems are unlikely to want to go much above £12,500 for various theoretical reasons (e.g., if you work full-time on the minimum wage, you get about £12,000; £12,500 basically allows them to claim that no-one on NMW pays income tax). But even if they did go above that rate, is G.O. suggesting that it would be impossible to change the thresholds? Or even, given it has already been done once, that the government would refuse to countenance doing it again?

@14

You can call me whatever you like, it doesn’t make it true.

I’ve just realised people keep talking about “Liberals”

Have so many of the lefties abandoned the cause now that the union with the social democrats has been disbanded?

@30

Unfortunately some people (mostly those outside the party) just can’t manage to move with the times and insist on calling us Liberals despite the fact that that hasn’t been our name for over 30 years.

@ 31

“Unfortunately some people (mostly those outside the party) just can’t manage to move with the times and insist on calling us Liberals despite the fact that that hasn’t been our name for over 30 years.”

Except when people use this to pretend that Lib Dems and Whigs are the same thing, I think it’s normally more driven by brevity than a refusal to move with the times.

Except when people use this to pretend that Lib Dems and Whigs are the same thing, I think it’s normally more driven by brevity than a refusal to move with the times.

Well, ish. ‘Liberals’ is longer than ‘Lib Dems’ after all.

@ Philip 28

“I think I might be missing something here, but last time the personal allowance was raised, the upper threshold was lowered in order to ensure that only basic rate payers benefited.”

That’s right. But the majority of households near the top of the income distribution will contain at least one basic rate taxpayer, and so get a tax cut. (Households where *two* people earn £45,000 plus are pretty rare.) Conversely, some households closer to the middle of the income distribution may contain only a higher rate tax payer. Compare a childless couple on £50k and £30k to a family with one earner on £50k supporting a spouse and three kids; the former gets a £700 tax cut at a time when the latter is losing £2,500 in Child Benefit. Redistribution from those with kids (and so ceteris paribus worse off) to those without (and so ceteris paribus better off) is a notable effect of coalition policies.

“My own view is that the Lib Dems are unlikely to want to go much above £12,500 for various theoretical reasons (e.g., if you work full-time on the minimum wage, you get about £12,000; £12,500 basically allows them to claim that no-one on NMW pays income tax).”

But the Tories might want to go higher, if they think they can get away with it. It would be easy enough for either party to dress any rise up as a progressive move – e.g. “from now on, no-one earning less than the Living Wage will pay tax/no one earning less than the median wage will pay tax/the threshold for tax and the threshold for student loan repayments will be aligned”.

“But even if they did go above that rate, is G.O. suggesting that it would be impossible to change the thresholds? Or even, given it has already been done once, that the government would refuse to countenance doing it again?”

No, the 40p threshold could be changed again. (The LDs would probably change it, the Tories probably wouldn’t.) But the policy would still be regressive.

31

Not only has it not been your name for thirty years, it hasn’t been your party either.

The Lib Dems were never even just a rebranded liberal party – they were a new party formed by union between the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats. The Social Democrats were by no means the lesser of two partners. It was very much a merger of equals.

And I find it uniquely disrespectful to the Social Democrats to overlook their role in forming a new party that, as much as I dislike it, managed to create a third party niche in an otherwise two party system.

Not than I’m averse to disrespecting lib dems of course – just that the distain should be directed properly…

@ 33 Tim J

“Well, ish. ‘Liberals’ is longer than ‘Lib Dems’ after all.”

Takes the same time to say (“lib’rals”). And I suspect some people feel that “Lib Dems” is vulgar. In any case, I don’t think it normally indicates ignorance or hostility.

The next election will be decided by the economy, which will still be really difficult, and fear of the future. Labour will not have either the necessary trust or leadership to capitalise – it still has its Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard, Cameron process to go through. The Trade Union strike record will add to the fear.
Neither will the voters trust an unfettered Conservative administration.
No one will expect the Lib Dems to have much power, but a Lib Dem moderated Labour or Tory administration will seem a lot more attractive than either of the main parties.
The net result is unpredictable but is likely to bring the FPTP system, reduced seats, unnatural constituency boundaries and gerrymandering, into disrepute.

@6: You mean the result which under the gerrymandered boundaries with AV would give the Conservatives a clear majority?

The electoral system is gerrymandered, but it’s gerrymandered to favour Labour as much as the Tories. The fact that Labour didn’t fix this — breaking manifesto promises along the way — means that Labour supporters have no moral right to complain when the Tories are as bad as them.

Labour’s equivocation over AV was also reprehensible, and falls into the same pattern as their refusal to implement PR for Westminster. All Labour candidates in 2010 stood on a pro-AV manifesto and Miliband should have kicked out people who publically oppose Labour policy.

@37,

I think in 2015 there will be many voters who have very little enthusiasm for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dems. However, under FPTP, these voters will not have any effective way of expressing their feelings, so it’s very hard to see how they’ll vote.

@29 – Yes, that I’m entirely right.

tldr for everyone else; No we shouldn’t, they’re too busy hugging the Tories and absorbing toxins in the process.

@38 – True, they should have condemned it as the shoddy system it is! AV, in practice, amplifies swings. It’s still majoritarian and not PR, and it’s less than worthless!

Labour definitely need to start playing the smart game. They and their devout supporters reacted badly, perhaps obviously, to the “betrayal” of the Lib Dems (who only did precisely what they said they would always do all the way leading up to the election) and that has to be expected. Forget all of the problems with incompatibility from both sides on each party through no doubt little more than stubborness, bridges were at least scorched a little.

I don’t believe the bridges are burned though, or at least Labour should hope they aren’t.

The reality is that there is a long time to go in this parliament, and while it could hold true that the Lib Dems have shot themselves in the foot through coalition, it could equally hold true that the public warm to them. The future simply isn’t predictable enough to say which way it will actually go. Do Labour really want to push the Lib Dems down a path where they’ll only consider the Tories because Labour and their supporters seem to want to spend more of their time with petty vindictiveness over not getting a result they had no right to claim?

The AV result was the worst thing for Labour looking ahead to 2015, and it’s been said before. You only have to look at the marginal survey that shows how many Labour voters would continue to vote Lib Dem in marginals to try and keep the Tories out (people a whole lot less in to crying in to their Gordon Brown print pillows over that 2010 love that was never to be). The reality is that AV would have helped deliver at least a Lab-lib coalition in 2015, that’s the real reason that the Tories opposed it so much. It’s crazy that anyone in Labour opposed it, but that seems to be their way of life right now, oppose anything regardless of how stupid it is to do so.

“I mean, fair enough if we think it’s a priority to boost the incomes of low-to-middle earners, and so put extra money into the tax credits system or childcare provision (say) – but £12 billion-plus of tax cuts for people in the top half of the income distribution? Seriously?”

You can focus on the minimal help that it gives to some moderate families, the rest will focus on the benefit it gives to marginal tax rates and the reduction of both financial barriers to getting in to, and the financial penalties of being in, full time or good part time work at the low end of the wage scale. It’s about as progressive a move as any in the tax system, and one the Lib Dems should (and are, as far as I’m aware) be proud of.

It’ll be interesting to see Labour trying to argue that they should take £30+ a month off of people on minimum wage and argue the progressive nature of that.

“The reality is that AV would have helped deliver at least a Lab-lib coalition in 2015″

No. With the border gerrymandering, it would have helped the Tories form another ConDem government.

And it’s dishonest to focus on the fact that raising the INCOME tax threshold delivers much of it’s help to middle earners, not the poor. There are far better ways to target BILLIONS in cash to actually poor people.

(You could, oh, extend tax credits down to part-time workers!)

“It is understandable for Labour supporters to be angry at the Lib Dems for jumping into bed with their enemies”.

It is also understandable that the Lib Dems – most of whom, like me, are left-leaning – might be very alienated from Labour by the silly childish behaviour of Labour supporters towards them over the last 18 months. “Beating them with a stick for signing on with the Tories” as one of your commentators puts it below.

In other words beating them with a stick for refusing to sign up with a party led by Brown.Just like the parliamentary Labour party in other words.

You might find a bit of negotiation and apology is needed before you find a Lib Dem who will be prepared to let you hug them.