What did the Lib Dems actually do wrong?

Lib Dems survived the squeeze in West Hampstead

It feels a little like we’ve all got into a time machine in Camden and tick-tocked back to a time before the 2006 council elections. Labour have their feet well and truly under the table once again after winning 30 seats at the Town Hall on Thursday. Most of the advances made by the Lib Dems over the last four years against Labour have been reversed.

The fear for Keith Moffitt’s party was always a squeeze that might be induced by having the local elections and the General Election would be held on the same day, that the turnout would be driven up and that the Labour vote would get its bums into gear in a way that they don’t seem to be bothered to do at council by-elections.

In fact, if Thursday had just been about the council, maybe the Lib Dems would have fared better. Instead, they’ve seen their seat count cut to ten councillors (albeit with the vote in Haverstock to come). What a cruel, unpredictable game this is. When the story of this year’s elections comes to be told in years to come, people will rightly ask: Well, what did the Lib Dem and Conservative coalition really do so wrong locally to be given such a whacking at the polls? They didn’t close any swimming pools down.

The explanation perhaps (I stress perhaps)  lies in the reason they managed to prise Labour out of power in Camden in the first place. Remember that dramatic count in 2006 when Labour councillor after Labour councillor lost their seats – did that night represent a positive vote for the Lib Dems and in some areas the Conservatives? Or was it a vote against Labour, whose local members were unable to defend their own government’s reprehensible stance on Iraq? Labour voters in Camden who were relied upon deserted their traditional party of choice. The key question is whether those people  aligned themselves closely with another party.

It certainly must have been hard at times for the Lib Dems to consolidate their vote in Kentish Town and Cantelowes, which had been Labour red for so long before. Especially when they were locked into a partnership with the Conservatives. They say someone needs to vote three times for a new party before it becomes a habit. Perhaps that’s why the party in the south of Camden were keen to renew the debate over the invasion of Iraq again during this campaign, prodding Frank Dobson over his voting record.

Yett with the threat of a Conservative government – unacceptable to Camden’s natural Labour vote – those self-inflicted wounds and divisions over Iraq seemed to be overlooked. And with Iraq, which was so so so divisive, no longer such a big issue on the doorstep, it seems many wavering Labour supporters were willing to revert to type – or at least make the effort to vote.

Nevertheless, the Lib Dems must be asking themselves where they actually went wrong in Camden over the last four years. The issue of council housing will always be difficult to reconcile but if you put that issue aside, what were the other decisions they took (that Labour wouldn’t have done in the same situation and under the same tough economic constraints) that made voters choose something else? If you know, there’s a comment box below.

The Lib Dems excel so much at by-elections but while thy would have wanted these council elections to have been fought like one big by-election, the wider political publicity made that not possible. This week’s disaster had hallmarks of the London elections in 2008 when the Lib Dems were all but written out of the narrative of the race for City Hall by the front page tug-of-war between Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. The way those elections, two years ago, were presented, some voters might have felt they were somehow not allowed to vote for anybody else.

The danger of Thursday’s polls becoming a similar one-or-the-other decision time event – choose now: Gordon or Dave? – seemed to have been negated by Nick Clegg’s performance.  The TV debates had got the party heard and the campaign nationally was impressive and well structured.

But the squeeze they feared came anyway, and the verdict was a brutal way to go.

5 Comments on What did the Lib Dems actually do wrong?

  1. Albert Shanker // May 9, 2010 at 8:41 pm //

    If the Lib Dems thought they would be squeezed, this doesn’t explain why they were briefing that they’d take Camden and both Parliamentary seats the day before the election.

  2. I think you give the Lib Dems a little too much credit. Being a resident in Kentish Town the Labour Party bombarded me with leaflets and canvassed me non-stop the last 3 years. I learned about the candidates, where they lived and what they stood for. The Lib Dems disappeared for some strange reason but popped back up when there was either a by-election or an election of some kind. LD candidates were effective opposition activists but in power were non-existent.

    There was also the issue with LD councillors disappearing to Arizona, calling someone a Nazi and getting arrested for strange reasons.

    How about the sales of Council homes; not disclosing senior officer wages; no clear strategy on tackling the recession locally; no strategy on reducing housing waiting lists and overcrowding? Negative campaigning against popular MPs like Dobbo and Glenda didn’t help them at all.

    Being propped up and ultimately led indirectly by the Tories didn’t help.

    I can go on and on and on and on….

  3. Nick Harding // May 9, 2010 at 9:27 pm //

    I recall the Iraq / Blair issue as being incredibly important for lots of traditionally Labour voters four years ago. It only needed a small percentage to abstain, vote Lib dem or Green to have made the diference in 2006. Polly Toynby advised labour voters to keep loyal (applying nose pegs) but many thought she was wrong. In the event, Camden was one of Labour’s losses, Blair resigned his position as leader of the Labour party soon afterwards and those who decided to use the local election to try to change things, succeded (ok it wasn’t only Camden but why not take some credit). They may feel history will prove them right. For them, loss of Camden for four years was a small price to pay.

    Nick Harding

  4. inde pendant // May 9, 2010 at 9:36 pm //

    the FIB DUMS are LIARS.
    the main reason for their defeat is their disgusting attitude.

    GRH above makes things pretty clear – thank you.

  5. Albert Shanker // May 9, 2010 at 11:45 pm //

    Also, Labour didnt close the swimming pool – remember.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: