Where did it all go wrong for The Liberal Democrats ?

[Horizon22]

They'll win some small-c voters, take some rural seats, and go into coalition with the Tories again.

Highly unlikely - the Lib Dems have campaigned a lot on anti-Conservative issues and I think this brand of Conservatives are quite far apart from Cameron et al. Most LD targets are seats they held in the "remain", relatively prosperous, well educated South East ("Blue Wall") and/or seats they previously held. N. Shropshire was the by-election machine in full gear (and then into overdrive; this was a huge result at the right time).

What Labour and the Lib Dems will probably have is some sort of implied "non-agression pact" and not an official electoral arrangement. This would be to the benefit of both, so long as the leaders can swallow their pride in some places.

 

[Noddy]

They'll win some small-c voters, take some rural seats, and go into coalition with the Tories again.

The Lib Dems will not go in to coalition again unless their leadership has a complete meltdown. Everyone seems to forgot that they also have also been in coalition governments in both Scotland and Wales, the coalitions in the early 2000s resulted in them largely treading water, hardly a ringing endorsement. Despite Kirsty Williams being in the last Welsh government they were almost wiped out in May.

If they want to govern they need to wait until they can be a majority partner.

 

[davehsug]

An interesting point though is big by-election wins in the 92-97 parliament, led by an unpopular Tory government (with big internal divisions over Europe), resulted sequence of increasingly bigger wins (in terms of number of MPs) in 97 (despite the dominance of Blair), 01 and 05. They did this by focusing heavily on winnable seats, using their by-election tactics and not spreading themselves too thinly which I think crept in the 2010 (share went up but they lost seats). At the next election I suspect they’ll choose 30 or so seats they think are most winnable, focus on those and defending their existing seats, with the hope that they’ll overtake the SNP and get the extra publicity, funding and committees that come with being the third placed party. Whether they achieve that will be dependent on whether the SNP have a 2017 or 2019 election.



Tim Farron has managed to hold on to Westmorland in recent years despite the kicking in the press (and internally) about his religion, and the problems the Lib Dems have had more widely. So I wouldn’t write them off just yet-it will largely be dependent on how much of a visible, campaigning, MP Helen Morgan is.

Generally speaking, Libdems do best not only when the Tories are unpopular, but also when Labour are reasonably ahead & not "feared" by centre right voters. If the soft Tory voters don't fear a Labour government, they are much more incline to vote Libdem in GEs. In 2015 & 2019 they were fed enough propaganda to believe that Ed Miliband was a "danger", and they needed little help in defining Corbyn as such in 2019. Not that I personally believed there was much to fear from either, especially Miliband. It's going to be much more difficult portraying Starmer as a threat to anyone. They'll surely go on getting some competence back into government and a promise to start repairing public services. God knows what state we'll be in come 23/24 and the Libdems may seem a safe vote for many very disillusioned Toreis. They may well find it easier making inroads into the Blue wall, than Labour will in regaining all of the Red wall.

 

[Acfb]

Yes, the lib dems shouldn't get carried away (they are extremely likely to lose N Shropshire back to the Tories in my view) but I think they can feasibly gain about 20 seats from the Tories at the next election most of which are in the South East and are increasingly likely to retain Chesham and Amersham.

 

[Bayum]

The 2010-15 coalition period was reasonable in my view. Liberals were able to temper Tories aspirations but stupid Liberal voters didn't like what they had implemented and instigated they chaos we now find ourselves in. Coalitions by their nature require compromises and the Liberals should have realised that more than anyone else.

However, to quite frankly s**t on the very voters that voted for the Lib Dems and to increase tuition fees so much when they ran their whole campaign on reducing/extinguishing tuition fees does not mean they’re ‘stupid’. It means that they’ve recognised that the Lib Dems didn’t have a leg to stand on in future elections for performing such a large u-turn on their manifesto once they got into power.

 

[Purple Orange]

However, to quite frankly s**t on the very voters that voted for the Lib Dems and to increase tuition fees so much when they ran their whole campaign on reducing/extinguishing tuition fees does not mean they’re ‘stupid’. It means that they’ve recognised that the Lib Dems didn’t have a leg to stand on in future elections for performing such a large u-turn on their manifesto once they got into power.

I think the tuition fees argument is overplayed here, just as it was overplayed in the media. I voted for the lib dems in 2005 & 2010, but while I wanted to see tuition fees ended, it was not the only reason I voted for them. They didn’t just have the student vote.

 

[al78]

However, to quite frankly s**t on the very voters that voted for the Lib Dems and to increase tuition fees so much when they ran their whole campaign on reducing/extinguishing tuition fees does not mean they’re ‘stupid’. It means that they’ve recognised that the Lib Dems didn’t have a leg to stand on in future elections for performing such a large u-turn on their manifesto once they got into power.

Did the Lib Dems actually agree to increase tuition fees when in coalition, or did they oppose it and were outvoted by Tory MPs? If a minority party is in coalition with a large party, they have only a fraction of the MPs so surely if the big party wants to do something that the minority party opposed, the minority party can just get swatted out of the way with the number of MPs of the big party supporting it?

 

[jfollows]

Did the Lib Dems actually agree to increase tuition fees when in coalition, or did they oppose it and were outvoted by Tory MPs? If a minority party is in coalition with a large party, they have only a fraction of the MPs so surely if the big party wants to do something that the minority party opposed, the minority party can just get swatted out of the way with the number of MPs of the big party supporting it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11964669 says that 28 Lib Dems voted for, 21 voted against, 8 abstained or were absent, and 6 Conservative MPs also voted against. A majority of 21 on the vote.

 

[al78]

I think the tuition fees argument is overplayed here, just as it was overplayed in the media. I voted for the lib dems in 2005 & 2010, but while I wanted to see tuition fees ended, it was not the only reason I voted for them. They didn’t just have the student vote.

As long as young people collectively have a minority vote and do not swing elections because they choose not to vote, they will always be an irrelevance as far as political parties are concerned. Political parties will prioritise key voting blocks and their donors.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11964669 says that 28 Lib Dems voted for, 21 voted against, 8 abstained or were absent, and 6 Conservative MPs also voted against. A majority of 21 on the vote.

Thanks, so the majority went against their manifesto. I'm not surprised Lib Dem voters were disillusioned.

 

[JamesT]

Thanks, so the majority went against their manifesto. I'm not surprised Lib Dem voters were disillusioned.

I note that quite a few of the names listed were government ministers at the time. Which does bring in cabinet collective responsibility, where ministers must publicly support decisions agreed in Cabinet or resign. So they didn't think it was a hill worth dying on. (Also with the proportion of LibDems who were in government, where would they have got replacements from?)
Though you'd probably have to go back to when the coalition agreement was sorted and ask why the LibDems didn't make sure they wouldn't have to be put in that position. They did later rebel against the boundary reforms after feeling they'd been betrayed over Lords reform.

 

[Bayum]

Did the Lib Dems actually agree to increase tuition fees when in coalition, or did they oppose it and were outvoted by Tory MPs? If a minority party is in coalition with a large party, they have only a fraction of the MPs so surely if the big party wants to do something that the minority party opposed, the minority party can just get swatted out of the way with the number of MPs of the big party supporting it?

I note that quite a few of the names listed were government ministers at the time. Which does bring in cabinet collective responsibility, where ministers must publicly support decisions agreed in Cabinet or resign. So they didn't think it was a hill worth dying on. (Also with the proportion of LibDems who were in government, where would they have got replacements from?)
Though you'd probably have to go back to when the coalition agreement was sorted and ask why the LibDems didn't make sure they wouldn't have to be put in that position. They did later rebel against the boundary reforms after feeling they'd been betrayed over Lords reform.

The Lib Dem in charge of negotiating the coalition in case of a hung parliament basically said it was disposable rhetoric. Nick Clegg had spent time trying to go back on the parties stance towards abolishing tuition fees and then signed for it next to his stone wall. Come power time, it was all washed away.

 

[jfollows]

Whereas I voted Lib Dem in 2010 because I wanted a coalition government, I was surprised but pleased to get one, I voted Lib Dem in 2015 because I thought that the Lib Dem influence in particular had made this a generally good government, and I didn't vote Lib Dem in 2017 because they had a silly (in my view) policy of a second referendum on the EU; I voted to remain in the EU and would do so again without hesitation but the result of the referendum was clear and in 2017 it was about trying to make the best of a bad job.
Just shows that people vote in different ways for different reasons, I knew in 2015 that the Lib Dems were about to get "punished". I felt that the tuition fee thing was part of the cost of coalition government, but also it didn't directly affect me anyway.

 

[najaB]

I didn't vote Lib Dem in 2017 because they had a silly (in my view) policy of a second referendum on the EU; I voted to remain in the EU and would do so again without hesitation but the result of the referendum was clear and in 2017 it was about trying to make the best of a bad job.

You might have a point that their policy was a mess, but the result of the referendum was anything but clear - hence why it's still basically paralysing UK politics, business and society six years later.

 

[nw1]

You might have a point that their policy was a mess, but the result of the referendum was anything but clear - hence why it's still basically paralysing UK politics, business and society six years later.

I completely agree, 13 for, 12 against and 11-ish abstaining is a pretty ambiguous result to me, certainly not a mandate for leave. "Simple majority" referenda are aptly described by a variation on the first word there - simplistic.

To my mind the actual result of the referendum (taking a nuanced, rather than simplistic, view) is that feelings on the matter were very mixed, and thus there was no mandate for destabilising change.

There are enough problems in the world without inventing additional self-inflicted problems and picking fights with non-threatening neighbours.

So the Lib Dems were in my view absolutely right to stand up for the "remain" cause. Someone had to, given the Tories were all-out leave and Labour, headed by the ineffectual Corbyn, were right behind them, at least in 2017.

I would have run a second referendum on different terms (e.g. 60% of cast votes for Leave, or >50% of the entire electorate voting for Leave required), due to the first one being badly designed. However I think the Lib Dems just wanted a re-run on the original terms. That was their mistake I think, and meant it was more difficult for them to claim the moral high ground: they should have argued against the poor design of the first referendum, blamed it on Cameron's inability to stand up to Farage and the ERG, and run a second one on "clear, unambiguous majority needed for change" terms.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You might have a point that their policy was a mess, but the result of the referendum was anything but clear - hence why it's still basically paralysing UK politics, business and society six years later.

In what way is Brexit still paralysing politics, business, and society?

 

[najaB]

In what way is Brexit still paralysing politics, business, and society?

Perhaps you didn't notice the multi-mile long queues in Kent, the lack of a Northern Ireland Assembly, the calls for a second Independence referendum in Scotland, the falling value of the pound, the flight of business from UK to Europe, the ongoing threat to the Northern Ireland agreement, the severe shortage of agricultural workers, the low stock levels in the supply chain, the inability to staff the NHS, the imminent expulsion of UK research organisations from the EU-wide research network, the fact that we are a smugglers haven due to the almost complete lack of customs checks, that almost every thread on RailUK eventually turns to discussion of Brexit and the fact that the hospitality industry can't get staff at the same time that our inbound tourist numbers are down.

But other than that, not much.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would have run a second referendum on different terms (e.g. 60% of cast votes for Leave, or >50% of the entire electorate voting for Leave required), due to the first one being badly designed. However I think the Lib Dems just wanted a re-run on the original terms. That was their mistake I think, and meant it was more difficult for them to claim the moral high ground: they should have argued against the poor design of the first referendum, blamed it on Cameron's inability to stand up to Farage and the ERG, and run a second one on "clear, unambiguous majority needed for change" terms.

I agree with you that the referendum was very badly designed. The trouble is though that, it's what the electorate were promised and then voted on. And given that the electorate had voted to leave in the (albeit badly designed) referendum, it's very difficult to then turn around and say, "well actually this result wasn't valid, we're going to ask you to vote again". Whether intended or not, that would've looked to everyone who voted leave like a refusal to accept their vote (and to the extent that it was motivated by a desire to keep the UK in the EU, it was indeed arguably a refusal to accept those votes). With hindsight, the LibDem's policy wasn't tenable. I think they'd have been served better by not opposing Brexit, but instead standing a platform of seeking to secure a Brexit that maximised trade links with the EU.

Perhaps you didn't notice the multi-mile long queues in Kent, the lack of a Northern Ireland Assembly, the calls for a second Independence referendum in Scotland, the falling value of the pound, the flight of business from UK to Europe, the ongoing threat to the Northern Ireland agreement, the severe shortage of agricultural workers, the low stock levels in the supply chain, the inability to staff the NHS, the imminent expulsion of UK research organisations from the EU-wide research network, the fact that we are a smugglers haven due to the almost complete lack of customs checks, that almost every thread on RailUK eventually turns to discussion of Brexit and the fact that the hospitality industry can't get staff at the same time that our inbound tourist numbers are down.

Yes, I'm aware of many of those things. But it seems to me a gross exaggeration to describe them as "paralysing politics, business, and society". To take politics as an example, I'll give you that the NI assembly is paralysed, but that's basically because of the Democratic Unionists playing silly buggers (as usual). It's not preventing normal politics in the 97%-ish of the UK that isn't Northern Ireland. The SNP in Scotland will always call for another Independence referendum at the slightest excuse - it is after all their main rationale for existing as a party! But it's not stopping normal politics from proceeding around it. In the Westminster Parliament, what paralysis there has been the last couple of months is due to the fallout from partygate, which is nothing to do with Brexit.

Likewise, the business problems you cite are simply business problems. I don't deny that they are problems, but they are a tiny part of the total business that happens in the UK, most of which is going fine. Shops and almost all businesses are open as normal, for example.

 

[Busaholic]

In what way is Brexit still paralysing politics, business, and society?

It would be easier to list the few ways in which Brexit is not paralysing those subjects.

 

[edwin_m]

The referendum was certainly very badly thought through by Cameron, probably either because he thought it would be a walkover to remain or because he expected the LibDems to demand it was cancelled as the price of continuing the coalition. Given that the majority didn't support Brexit by the time it happened, it was entirely reasonable of the LibDems to call for a second referendum, certainly once the terms of the proposed deal were known. On Brexit just as on the Iraq war, the defining issues for two governments, the LibDems have proved to be correct where both major parties were wrong.

 

[Phil56]

I think the tuition fees argument is overplayed here, just as it was overplayed in the media. I voted for the lib dems in 2005 & 2010, but while I wanted to see tuition fees ended, it was not the only reason I voted for them. They didn’t just have the student vote.

It's not just students though is it? It's also parents of teenagers and those working in higher education, etc etc. Lots of Uni lecturers would be "natural" libdem supporters and are against tuition fees as students paying large fees increases pressure on the Unis to provide quality courses etc rather than the lacklustre usual "free" public services where the standard response to complaints is "it's free, so suck it up", such as the NHS!

 

[neilmc]

Bottom line for me is that the Lib Dems betrayed their electors (and remember they tend to attract younger and more affluent voters) on the issue of raising university tuition fees. Anyone in this category, and many others, who are probably left of centre will be very angry that they conspired with the Tories and kicked their young intellectual vote, who repented of their sins and turned to Labour to represent them. Whereas those right-of-centre (not that many I suspect) were quite happy to return to the Tory fold at the next election.

What made me forgive them was their utter rightness on the Brexit fiasco, when the Tories acted like an authoritarian neo-Nazi party and kicked out their best and most intelligent who could see through this (think Rory Stewart) under the control of that immoral dosser Boris Johnson, and Labour wobbled under the ineffective Jeremy Corbyn giving no clear signal. So much so that the Lib Dems recruited me to stand in a by-election which I won and now represent a swathe of formerly solid Tory rural villages in an authority which has turned yellow, which may be in hindsight the best thing I've done in my life.

 

[Acfb]

Lib Dems do seem to be polling better now - 13% in tonight's opinium. If they win Tiverton and Honiton by about 5000 votes as I now expect, it will be interesting to see if they get a further polling boost.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What made me forgive them was their utter rightness on the Brexit fiasco, when the Tories acted like an authoritarian neo-Nazi party and kicked out their best and most intelligent who could see through this (think Rory Stewart) under the control of that immoral dosser Boris Johnson, and Labour wobbled under the ineffective Jeremy Corbyn giving no clear signal. So much so that the Lib Dems recruited me to stand in a by-election which I won and now represent a swathe of formerly solid Tory rural villages in an authority which has turned yellow, which may be in hindsight the best thing I've done in my life.

Congratulations on being elected. But, given that you have made it clear that you are a public elected representative - which arguably implies some need to act responsibly: Do you really think it's appropriate to use the kind of over-exaggerated inflammatory language that I've highlighted to describe your political opponents?

 

[najaB]

Do you really think it's appropriate to use the kind of over-exaggerated inflammatory language that I've highlighted to describe your political opponents?

I don't think that's much of an exaggeration - purging the ranks of those who disagree with the Dear Leader is a hallmark of authoritarian leadership.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think that's much of an exaggeration - purging the ranks of those who disagree with the Dear Leader is a hallmark of authoritarian leadership.

You don't think that describing the Conservative Party as a 'neo-Nazi party' is much of an exaggeration? Seriously???

Also worth pointing out that at no time did Boris Johnson 'purge the ranks of those who disagreed with him' - you're putting a pretty inaccurate spin on what happened by describing it in those terms: The MPs that had the whip removed were those who had actually voted against what if I recall correctly was a 3-line whip - it wasn't that they merely disagreed with him. I believe all the main UK parties use 3-line whips.

 

[Butts]

Lib Dems do seem to be polling better now - 13% in tonight's opinium. If they win Tiverton and Honiton by about 5000 votes as I now expect, it will be interesting to see if they get a further polling boost.

Will they at the next opportunity rise to the 62 MP's returned at the 2005 General Election ?

 

[The Ham]

Will they at the next opportunity rise to the 62 MP's returned at the 2005 General Election ?

Anything is possible, it could even be possible that they could end up higher than that.

I suspect it depends on what their policies are, what happens between now and then, and how people feel things are going for them.

For instance if the Lib Dems proposed joining the Common Market (which I suspect a lot of people thought that we'd still be part of post Brixit) whilst the Tories policies were seeing trade fall with the EU because of lots of red tape; then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Lib Dems to do fairly well if Labour didn't have a clear policy.

If there's a full split in the Tory Party (there's been suggestions that the Welsh Conservatives are thinking of doing so and it wouldn't be unreasonable for others to join them, not least those in Scotland where most viewed against Boris) then that's going to split the Tory vote. With all little EU involvement as possible (including the paradoxical named European Research Group) in one side and the softer Brexit (i.e. let's rejoin the trading block) on the other. That could be enough to allow the Lib Dems to win a lot of seats and leave the total of the two parts of the current Tory Party with a shocking low number of seats (probably still comfortable over 100, but quite a fall from where they are currently).

However such a fall would likely mean that a lot of the lost seats could end up with Lib Dems and even a few going to the Greens (as they wouldn't all just switch to Labour, certainly not in areas in the South).

An interesting outcome would be if there was a way, that in theory, the Tories, with about 250 seats (which wouldn't even need full split in the Party to achieve, and is a long way ahead of their 1997 number of MP's), and SNP with their 45 seats (maybe with a few rebels and support from NI and Welsh MP's to get it across the line) could vote done a Labour/Lib Dems/Greens coalition vote. However given how well like the Tories are North of the Boarder, it would be rare that such coalition (Tory/SNP) would end up voting down something.

In such a scenario Labour would need to be limited to about 260 seats and the Lib Dems could then have their 62 seat total that they had before.

Of course if the Tories got circa 150 seats (about the same as 1997) then the Lib Dems could do really well and have 110 seats and it still limit Labour to 325ish (i.e. only just enough to have a majority without needing a coalition, although I suspect that there would be a lot of common ground on a lot of policies).

 

[daodao]

What made me forgive them was their utter rightness on the Brexit fiasco, when the Tories acted like an authoritarian neo-Nazi party and kicked out their best and most intelligent who could see through this (think Rory Stewart) under the control of that immoral dosser Boris Johnson, and Labour wobbled under the ineffective Jeremy Corbyn giving no clear signal.

"Authoritarian neo-Nazi party" - ridiculous hyperbole - the MPs concerned lost the whip because they rebelled on a 3-line whip.

Rory Stewart categorised as one of the "best and most intelligent" - pull the other one.

I agree that Corbyn was ineffective; he isn't the cleverest politician, but he was hamstrung by the likes of the scheming Starmer, who stabbed him in the front over Brexit.

The LDs lost badly in the 2019 general election because they advocated revoking, without a further public vote, the result of the 2016 EU membership referendum. How anti-democratic can you get?

Anything is possible, it could even be possible that they could end up higher than that.

I suspect it depends on what their policies are, what happens between now and then, and how people feel things are going for them.

For instance if the Lib Dems proposed joining the Common Market (which I suspect a lot of people thought that we'd still be part of post Brixit) whilst the Tories policies were seeing trade fall with the EU because of lots of red tape; then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Lib Dems to do fairly well if Labour didn't have a clear policy.

If there's a full split in the Tory Party (there's been suggestions that the Welsh Conservatives are thinking of doing so and it wouldn't be unreasonable for others to join them, not least those in Scotland where most viewed against Boris) then that's going to split the Tory vote. With all little EU involvement as possible (including the paradoxical named European Research Group) in one side and the softer Brexit (i.e. let's rejoin the trading block) on the other. That could be enough to allow the Lib Dems to win a lot of seats and leave the total of the two parts of the current Tory Party with a shocking low number of seats (probably still comfortable over 100, but quite a fall from where they are currently).

However such a fall would likely mean that a lot of the lost seats could end up with Lib Dems and even a few going to the Greens (as they wouldn't all just switch to Labour, certainly not in areas in the South).

An interesting outcome would be if there was a way, that in theory, the Tories, with about 250 seats (which wouldn't even need full split in the Party to achieve, and is a long way ahead of their 1997 number of MP's), and SNP with their 45 seats (maybe with a few rebels and support from NI and Welsh MP's to get it across the line) could vote done a Labour/Lib Dems/Greens coalition vote. However given how well like the Tories are North of the Boarder, it would be rare that such coalition (Tory/SNP) would end up voting down something.

In such a scenario Labour would need to be limited to about 260 seats and the Lib Dems could then have their 62 seat total that they had before.

Of course if the Tories got circa 150 seats (about the same as 1997) then the Lib Dems could do really well and have 110 seats and it still limit Labour to 325ish (i.e. only just enough to have a majority without needing a coalition, although I suspect that there would be a lot of common ground on a lot of policies).

Mere speculation. While the LDs may gain some seats at the next general election (after all they are starting from a low base of 11 won at the last general election), the idea that there might be a Labour-LD coalition is somewhat unlikely for ideological reasons. The laissez faire liberal approach on social and economic policy advocated by the LDs is very different from the authoritarian state-run socialism of the Labour party. A minority Labour administration is more likely if the Tories can't form a government.

 

[The Ham]

Mere speculation. While the LDs may gain some seats at the next general election (after all they are starting from a low base of 11 won at the last general election), the idea that there might be a Labour-LD coalition is somewhat unlikely for ideological reasons. The laissez faire liberal approach on social and economic policy advocated by the LDs is very different from the authoritarian state-run socialism of the Labour party. A minority Labour administration is more likely if the Tories can't form a government.

Anything we say is mere speculation (unless we have a way of rigging elections), the point being that under normal circumstances a minority Labour administration would be a likely outcome.

However given the level of infighting, cost of living increases and various other factors, some of the more out there outcomes could come about.

It has to be remembered that in a lot of the South, where the Tories have some fairly safe seats, that Labour often sit in third place and so would unlikely to win such seats.

For instance Hampshire has 18 MP's, the chances of more than 4 being Labour is fairly low, however it could be that (if the electorate decide to punish the Tories) a few others go to the Lib Dems. Likewise Surrey, with its 11 MP's, is unlikely to see many areas vote in Labour, so again there could be a few more Lib Dems. Oxfordshire, Dorset, Kent and Buckinghamshire (maybe even Somerset, Devon and Cornwall) would probably follow similar patterns where there's likely to be limited scope for Labour to win many seats, but if the Tories get voted out in those areas it's likely to go Lib Dems.

If you look at the number of seats in England that Labour won in 1997 it was 328, as such a Labour total of about 325 (OK then there were 34 Welsh Labour seats and there could still be a few from Scotland in any future election) isn't a crazy outcome, especially given that in 2017 328 was what Corybn won. It also has to be remembered that they currently have about 200 MP's so to get to 325 would be a fairly big improvement in what they've had of late.

Yes the Lib Dems getting about 100 seats would be fairly unlikely, but not impossible. Getting 62 could be doable.

To give an example, locally to me what used to be over 65% vote for the Tory Party at the 2015 General Election (plus 8.8% for UKIP) and 75% within my local wards for the District Election has fallen, 2019 saw the General Election vote fall to sub 60% (with 0% for UKIP, with few of those votes likely to move to anyone other than to the Tories) and then fall again to 47% (the Lib Dems got 40%) in my local ward in the District Election in 2022.

Now I'm not saying that the Tories would lose that seat, however based on that I could see that seats where the vote share wasn't as safe that it could shift to see a Lib Dem win. Where as Labour would struggle to get anywhere close enough to win.

As I said it very much depends on what happens between now and the election and what each party has as policies.

 

[najaB]

You don't think that describing the Conservative Party as a 'neo-Nazi party' is much of an exaggeration? Seriously???

If that was what @neilmc had said, then yes it would have been over the top. Which is why it's a good thing they didn't write that.