Guardian endorses Libdems at election
I somewhat predicted this only a month ago, and today a Guardian editorial endorses the Libdems in the coming elections. Given that the Greens are not yet effective opposition to the Tories, I think this is an inevitable and wise move. Endorsing a Labour party headed by Gordon Brown now is like trying to convince the electorate that contracting herpes is a good idea. Even in 2004, despite Iraq, the Guardian did not go the whole hog.
So this is quite an impressive turn of events. Most surprisingly of all, it follows Polly Toynbee’s endorsement. Does this mean the Libdems will now break through as the real opposition? Interesting analysis of this was offered by both Sunder and MatGB in the previous thread.
But I think the Libdems are missing a key constituency: The Economist readers, as suggested by Amol Rajan at the Indy. I think Nick Clegg’s lot should aggressively pursue the Economist and convince it’s editors of their progressive economic ideas. If they get some traction, then the Libdems would enter the conciousness of the commentariat much faster. Endorsement from the Indy and the Guardian alone isn’t going to swing it for them.
---------------------------
Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by Sunny Hundal
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Libdems ,Media ,Westminster
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
The chatterati endorse the Lib Dems. Bears may defecate in the forest. What on earth took them so long? (The chatterati, I mean, not the bears).
That isn’t a slight tinge of bitterness I read, is it Bob?
Polly Toynbee’s endorsement = the kiss of death.
Economist readers are going to be interested in (classical) “liberal” policies, certainly.
How keen are they going to be on “progressive” ones – in the sense in which you normally use the word?
How influential do you think the Economist is these days (on UK voting intentions)?
Good point, well made, OP. No sub is ever going to have to write “It was the Guardian wot won it” in 120-point type. The thing is, even the endorsement of the Economist isn’t going to make much difference. The Libdems have to make their breakthrough on the doorsteps for any leader column to have an effect. I haven’t stuffed leaflets or gone canvassing since the Richmond by-election in 1989 – and round my way, it seems only the Libdems still bother. So perhaps there’s hope yet. (I’m still voting Green, mind…)
But it seems like every election since, well, since a very long time ago has been tipped to be the one where the LibDems finally “break through” and really influential but it never seems to happen. So is it really going to happen now?
Why is Polly Toynbee’s call “most surprising of all”? She was a founder member of the SDP in 1981. (She has again pinned her colours to the GB must go mast, and would be enormously enthusiastic about Labour again if Johnson were made leader).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jan/20/liberaldemocrats.politicalcolumnists1
I think the advice to aggressively pursue The Economist and its readers is not particularly good. That would take the LibDems back into projecting a strongly Orange Book positioning. Of course, there is a perfectly legitimate argument about whether or not, and how far, to do that. To do it on the grounds that impressing The Economist is an important prize would be odd. Are targetting affluent business opinion formers and voters the priority for the LibDems? The LibDem claim is that they will be making important inroads into Labour seats. (I remain rather sceptical about this, largely because of the electoral map: having more than doubled their seats from 1997-2005 without increasing their share of the vote, their first priority is to defend what they have from the Tories).
I doubt The Economist has much influence on its readers’ voting intentions … they like to make a paradoxically clever “talking point” endorsement, eg advocating a vote for Blair as the best Thatcherite in 2001, though I think their endorsement of Labour, Blair and Brown in 2005 was fairly straight.
Another one that will be interesting to watch will be the FT – it’s been the most enthusiastically New Labour paper of all. Both the Pearson titles are more likely, I suspect, to switch straight to the Tories rather than stop off with the Lib Dems en route.
Does anybody take Polly Toynbee seriously these days? Private Eye have an excellent summary of her comments over the past couple of years in which she can’t seem to make up her mind whether Gordon is God or the Devil.
Yes, I don’t feel particularly threatened by the Guardian, Independent or Polly Toynbee supporting the Lib Dems, either. Most or all have been doing it tacitly for some time; in some ways it’s better for them to be out in the open.
I wouldn’t be worried about the Economist calling for a vote for the Lib Dems, either. If the Mirror switched allegiance, then I’d be worried. And like Tim J, I’ll be interested to see what the FT does, too. If Cameron continues with his Mickey Mouse economics, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the FT back Labour against the flow.
Worth noting as well, the dismissive tone of an economist article this week about the Lib Dems – suggesting that Proportional Representation would seriously hurt them as a party.
The logic of their argument was surprisingly sound – pointing out that when given the choice of a green party or other such morally crusading options in EP elections, the chattering classes stop voting lib dem.
The economist will thus almost certainly not be heading that way.
I would ‘nt be surprised if te main aim of the Guardian is to maintain a large left wing middle class
bureaucracy in order to maintain sales. Cable’ comments that large cutbacks in government expenditure will be required for years if not decades may come as a shock to many left wing middle class. In order to turn around the country’s finances we will need to enter an age of austerity.
Sunder—a reason to get the economist on board is fairly simple. Money.
Economist readers will frequently be fairly succesful in business. The Lib Dems are skint. Given that they’re pretty good on liberal economics at the moment, it might happen, but I’m not that interested in it one way or t’other. As Richard says, it’s leaflets through doors that actually matter, and convincing people that winning is actually possible (FWIW, have you read Linton & Southcott’s Making Votes Count? Some very good stuff on third party squeeze with some Cornish and London based analysis—Mary gave me one of her copies after it got remaindered).
The LibDems should go back to their constituancies and er, prepare for government..?
The LibDems should go back to their constituencies and er, prepare for government..?
Where have we heard that one before?
Whenever I pick up a copy of the Economist I’m always struck by its absurdly inflated opinion of its own importance and correctness, which as I casual reader I find impossible to share.
It always strikes me as a load of English twats spouting complacent, smartarse, wrongheaded shit to the world.
Yeah, I think the Economist often sucks.
Maybe, but its global coverage of news is unparalleled for a newspaper/magazine. You get a favour of local news all across the world, which you simply can’t get from any other paper.
Heh, that’s what I say about the Morning Star.
Lib Dems should make it clear that they – well, Clegg at least – are tax cutters. And try get to get Vince Cable on Strictly Come Dancing. Easy.
A huge mistake by the Guardian and Polly Toynbee (chief utiliser of the nose peg [http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/election2005/archives/2005/04/13/hold_your_nose_and_vote_labour.html]). They are throwing a protest vote to the Liberals for the benefit of the Tories. Perhaps Sunny’s previous post on The Guardian’s cosying up to Cameron is being expressed far more tactically than meets the eye.
Yes, but can’t classical liberals & social democrats (of the kind we’re talking about) agree on certain issues, such as raising the income tax threshole, & the concept that the tax credits system as it stands isn’t a useful way of benefiting low earners?
It is at least theoretically possible for the Groan & the Economist to not only endorse the same party but also agree with the same policies.
You can’t make too big a deal about internecine strife- the two “wings” have coexisted in the same party for some time & generally don’t have a huge struggle promoting policies.
The main difference between Labour and the Lib Dems is not that the former have traditionally had more “big newspapers” supporting them. it’s that Labour has a heartland of rock-solid seats that will ensure it returns MPs above it’s actual polling figures. The Lib Dems lack that bedrock of safe seats, and are hurt by the FPTP system.
Which is a major reason why Labour figures like Blunkett come out fiercely against PR: they know a switch to PR will hurt Labour and profit the Lib Dems.
I think there’s almost no chance of the economist continuing to support Labour. It’s coverage has been almost unremittingly negative ever since Brown became leader.
Interestingly, they turned David Cameron down at interview for a job…
The funniest parts of Toynbee’s endorsement are: (a) she writes a ‘don’t punish the poor ickle councillors’ article every year around election time, and (b) she now has a huge stake in New Labour doing so badly that Brown is forced out – anyone else spot the contradiction? Even if you agree that her heart might be in the right place, her increasingly desperate attempts to get someone – anyone – to implement the social democratic politics in her head just make her look sad, if not silly, because she never understood that Blair/New Labour had no such intentions.
(Sunder, if you really want a laugh, look up Toynbee’s article where she exhorts the LibDems to move to the left of New Labour in some bizarro political version of musical chairs…)
Carl, how on earth can a vote for the Lib Dems (not the Liberals, I don’t think they’re running candidates for Europe are they?) benefit the Conservatives in a PR-by-list election?
I’d be happy to see your logic, but there is no way it can benefit them electorally.
Redpesto—by any sane definition of left wing, the Lib Dems are already to the left of Labour. If you think otherwise, what definition are you using?
Sunny has a point. There is a lot that the Economist gets wrong, but it is, by some distance, the most influential weekly in the world; and it has been the most influential for over 40 years. An endosrement from it would probaly not shift a thousand British votes directly; but indirectly it matters.
TimJ
One thing the Economist is notoriously good at is selecting staff.
MatGB: Redpesto—by any sane definition of left wing, the Lib Dems are already to the left of Labour. If you think otherwise, what definition are you using?
I don’t think I’ve got a definition to hand, though I’d be confused if the LibDems are/were ‘equidistant’ from both major parties, yet somehow to the left of New Labour. My point was that it would seem odd that Toynbee would encourage the LibDems to move to the left and not the Labour party – though given that the very idea of ‘The Left’ makes Toynbee break out in a rash, I shouldn’t be surprised.
Sunder:
I think the advice to aggressively pursue The Economist and its readers is not particularly good. That would take the LibDems back into projecting a strongly Orange Book positioning.
My point about trying to attract The Economist endorsement is to say that it will have more of an impact on the commentariat and the political/media classes than actual voters. But that is still what the Libdems need.
Secondly, if they start positioning themselves more economically right-wing as a result of trying to seek Economist support, then that leaves the space more open for Labour. but right now the Libdems are trumping them in the economy stakes I feel.
I think we need to move on from right/left economics.
In some cases the government needs to get involved (utilities, regulation etc.), in other cases it should allow people to create and innovate without interference.
Why must we be bogged down by ideological dogma? Why can’t we just be intelligent and accept the nuance of a mixed economy?
Because Aaron, that would require thought, understanding and a willingness to look at the other persons point of view.
It’s been known to happen in Parliament. Maybe. Once.
Aaron:
Why must we be bogged down by ideological dogma? Why can’t we just be intelligent and accept the nuance of a mixed economy?
…because the very proportion of that mix underpins much left/right politics?
Sunny@28
My point was that the LibDems are doing very well with the political-media class and the commentariat. This is not where their challenge now is. However, I think there is a case for saying that LibDem
I think The Economist is influential, particularly with decision-makers on international affairs, because it is in effect an international paper. But it seeks to influence decision-makers directly, rather than electorates. Few publications combine the US circulation it has with its UK presence, and strong reach to the political elite in other countries. But I don’t think it would claim much impact on UK domestic politics. And its editorials are not treated in a similar way to UK national newspaper editorials in terms of domestic politics.
PaulS@22 – this is of course correct, that the LibDems are disadvantaged by first-past-the-post. Nevertheless, they are much less disadvantaged by it than they were: compare the 1983 and 1992 results with that of 1997, 2001 and 2005 to see how much more effective the centre has become at FPTP. It is a further paradox that the LibDems have tended to do badly (in vote share) in PR elections – in Europe, London, Scotland and Wales, perhaps in part because PR opens up the field,
There has been a significant level of support for PR and/or other forms of electoral reform within Labour since the late 1980s – and that is again growing now. It is interestingly cross-factional within the party. The claim that PR would hurt Labour is true in some (perhaps quite narrow) senses, but I think very challengeable in others, as this is also a debate about what the party’s objectives and interests are or should be. Making a majority Labour government less likely is not the only issue, if it might also change the broader contours of what the centre-left can do in power, and what the right can do in power too.
So Hattersley’s conversion reflects the broad feeling among what might be called centre-left social democratic Labour (ie, the moderate centre-left; somewhat but not lurchingly to New Labour’s left) that it is overall better for social democrats to support a pluralist political system.
MatGB, I called the Lib Dems the Liberals for short, and if voters on the centre left place their x for the lib dems rather than Labour – who are, though struggling, leading the lib dems – then it will benefit Tories confidence. Having said that, since a recent poll also saw Tories on the same points as ‘other parties’, I think the protest vote in general should be taken with precaution.
I am a long-standing Economist subscriber, and will be voting Lib-Dem in the forthcoming elections. Of course, these two pieces of information are related (by my liberal ideology), but I don’t need an “Economist supports Lib-Dems” editorial to make that link.
Carl, there is a party called the Liberal Party. I know the Prime Minister does it at PMQs every so often, but Liberal has more letters than Lib Dem, and refers to a different party. Just, y’know, correcting facts, given it’s actually a legal thing (one law from LAbour I actually kinda like, even if it is badly done).
But surely lots of people voting Lib Dem will help Lib Dem confidence? The Tories might enjoy coming first, but they’re going to do that in the next GE unless something massive happens anyway.
Best way of stopping it is to ensure valid anti-Tory candidates are confident. In my area, the sitting (Labour) MP is standing down, there’s no way her replacement has a chance of winning, thus the Lib Dems are the best chance we have of stopping the Tory candidate (who’s a git). That’s not the case everywhere, but…
Tories will do well and crow regardless, the polls put them high for GE voting but they’re slipping (the duck ponds aren’t helping). The best bet we have is either Labour kicking Brown out and going for a complete makeover change of the guard (where are the class of ’97 in Cabinet anyway) or a strong Lib Dem showing.
Unless Labour sort their act out, the only game in town is the Lib Dems—I support people like Sunder (and Sam Tarry) workign from within the party, but electorally, we need a valid alternative. A high Lib Dem vote will show people there is that alternative.
redpesto
I don’t agree (I don’t think).
This compromise is not reached through reason and experience, but through political battles, attempts to triangulate the opposition or appease the press, and elections. We swing left to right, and changes are made – very little is based on common sense or objective testing.
Even “think-tanks” are ideology based. Ideology shapes thought and misleads us.
ok, yes the Liberal Party, I’m with you and aware of them, I’ll never call the Lib Dems the liberals again, although I’m not partaking in anything that requires from me legal awareness (aprt from I suppose curbing my Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments) I’ll accept your lawful plea.
OK, so your Tory MP stood down (is your house like his? Will I be jealous of that, too?) and the Lib Dem one has good chances, then yeah go for it. Labour is probably fourth in your area whatever the year (haven’t checked this, will admit defeat if wrong).
I’m just endorsing the Labour vote as opposed to the Lib Dem protest vote, on the centre left that is. See Toynbee’s article, its not so much strategic, as it is “vote for consistency”, I wrote on my blog somewhere a more drawn out criticsm of this protest vote.
The Economist? Gimme a break.
I probably live in a Tory area? No, I grew up in one (the one you reference as it happens). Read what I said: “the sitting (Labour) MP”.
In Calder Valley, the Labour party has collapsed, has had its initial PPC selection rejected, is tearing itself apart about the new selection, and perhaps more importantly, no longer has any borough councillors, whereas it was strong in ’97. The Lib Dems have most of the council seats.
In this constituency, now, the Labour PPC (Tony Blair’s mother in law) has no chance of winning. If I thought otherwise, I’d be campaigning in different local seats, there are several locally the Lib Dems could win. If the sitting MP were running again, I’d vote for her.
But as it is, I want to stop the Tory candidate from winning, that means getting the Lib Dem vote up because it’s our best chance.
Given the policy platforms both parties espouse, I can’t see where you’re coming from on the ‘protest vote’ thing. Maybe 20 years ago, but not now, the Lib Dems are a nationally viable party, and especially in this election, no vote (for them) is wasted.
If you’re absolutely convinced that Brown’s Labour party are a) worth backing and b) capable of doing well at the next GE, then that’s an opinion you’re welcome to, but I can’t see any evidence for it currently. Dump Brown and it’s a different story.
I had a look at your frontpage, couldn’t see anything on the subject.
I posted yesterday its a scroll away, and before I said anything I looked at your post only to find mention of your parents’ Tory MP is standing down, thats why I referenced him.
I’m not convinced of a, but b I am convinced of. My vote on Thursday for Labour is in the knowledge that to be able to be a real contender in the GE, Brown must go. I can see how the protest vote talk may seem confusuing, but what I mean is protest votes are rather futile, if the party your vote is for gains confidence as an outcome. I believe a lot of talk like this has emerged from those disaffected Labour supporters who plan to vote BNP.
And, actually, I’m not too hot on the Lib Dems (nationally that is, they don’t play too big a part in local politics down here in Bouncy Basildon).
how on earth can a vote for the Lib Dems (not the Liberals, I don’t think they’re running candidates for Europe are they?) benefit the Conservatives in a PR-by-list election?
Why then are you not criticising your own party for peddling similar lies about their opponents in the Euro elections? “Tories/Labour?Greens can’t win here! It’s a two-horse race!” along with the dreaded Bar Charts of Shit.
Latest ComRes poll has Greens at 15% and Lib Dems at 14% nationally in Euro election voter-intentions. http://www.comres.co.uk/resources/7/Green%20Party%20Poll%20Results%20June09.pdf (PDF)
Thanks for that poll, Rayyan. But…
Relative to other polls conducted in the same time frame, Tories are too low at 24%. Total sample is ~1,000 and after excluding those unlikely to vote ~500. The YouGov total sample is 5,000.
http://www.yougov.co.uk/archives/pdf/DT-results_27-29MAY.pdf
Comres may have a scoop, or they may have weaker methodology.
Aaron:
Keynes v Hayek: common sense, objective testing.or ideology?
Carl, I understand now—you mean that Labour supporters voting for another party in order to remove Brown is pointless. Yes, I think I agree on that, it can only hurt the party and if you’re that partisan that you want that party to do well, then it’s not a good strategy. And living in Bellweather Basildon I also get why your perception is skewed, that’s such a tight marginal normally that there’s no space for any other contenders; in other areas, that’s distinctly not true.
Rayyan, change the record already, I already answered that question and gave my opinion on it in whatever thread you first brought it up in, but you’re repeating the same old talking point in every thread, couldn’t you add something new to the discussion? No party has completely clean hands when it comes to campaigning.
And, given that campaigning strategy is an internal issue, I tend to take it up internally, I find that public infighting isn’t good two days before an election, but feedback on it will be put forward.
I also agree with Charlieman on the poll-ComRes have done some very dodgy sampling methods in the polls I’ve drilled down into, most people give ICM the most credence when it comes to anything other than the big two parties, ICM has the Lib Dems higher. But as I constantly say, the poll that counts is the one where the votes are counted, opinion polls are dodgy as hell as a general rule (I studied polling methodology before deciding I hated it, and most company polls are only really good for national bellweather opinion, I don’t think they’ll be right even for the Euros where constituencies matter a lot less).
We’ll see on Sunday, but the issue to me isn’t how many LDs get elected, it’s overall turnout and how many lunatic fringers get elected (and I don’t count your lot in that currently, although we do seem to have lost a few lunatic activists to you, which I thank you for )
It is not a resounding endorsement. The Guardian says that it definitely does not support the Conservatives (no surprise there), and makes a comment about progressives supporting the Greens. In terms of the LibDems it does endorse them for the euro-elections, but bear in mind that the LibDems are the most euro-friendly party anyway. As for local elections the paper says the sensible thing: they are local elections so vote locally.
When you read through that editorial it reads more like a “get your act together” message to Labour rather than anything else. Oh and remember that Toynbee is a Cameron favourite, you don’t need to say much more than that.
Incidentally, their comments about the Greens is interesting since the Guardian has been pro Nuclear power for several years now, something that puts them at odds with the Greens. But a final thing to remember about the Greens – so far they are the only party that I have seen who publicly argue against cuts in public services, perhaps Gordon should learn from that.
I live in a Labour area but I haven’t received any fliers from Labour, the Tories or the LibDems yet – or the BNP for that matter – just the Greens and UKIP.
Is this happening elsewhere?
Shatterface: I live in a LD – Lab marginal (Brent East, for now) – we’ve got Eurofliers from LibDems, Tories and the lunatic fringe (BNP and CPP – cunningly hidden inside some Somerfield ads) but not a peep from Labour.
Dawn Butler and Sarah Teather will be slugging it out here next year (if not sooner) and we’re yet to get a single piece of literature from Labour in nearly two years. It really looks like local party organisation has vanished in this corner of NW London.
MatGB – that sounds like Colne Valley? Our next constituency if all goes well…
Shatterface, in theory, every registered voter in the country has received a leaflet from each party putting candidates up in their region, the Royal Mail has delivered them.
If you haven’t, then either a) the mail are crap, b) it was folded inside some junk mail you binned or c) the mail were crap.
Seany, yup, very similar seats, if I weren’t working Calder Vallery for Hilary I’d be working Colne Valley for Nicola, both are strong candidates who’ll make good MPs. Where you moving to? I’ve not been around the whole area yet, but Marsden and Slaithwaite both impressed me while there.
Mat,
Ah, it’s beautiful in places round Calderdale. We’re probably moving to Holmfirth or one of the surrounding villages at the end of the year (one side of the family are from that part of the world), once we find someone who can get a first-time buyers’ mortgage in London. (although we could end up in the Wakefield constituency if we’re not careful).
Worryingly, the make-up of the council suggests that Holmfirth is a Tory stronghold – good LibDem roots in the area because of Wainwright, though…
I’m in Brent Something or Other and have had only the Christians and UKIP,
On the Economist, recall it advocated the Conservative in 1997, a point which still makes me laugh.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Owen Blacker
RT @ianvisits: Endorsing a Labour party headed by GB like trying to convince electorate contracting herpes is a good idea http://is.gd/M5R2
[Original tweet] -
Twitted by owenblacker
[...] This post was Twitted by owenblacker – Real-url.org [...]
-
» Mocking the Greens and the ‘protest’ voteLiberal Conspiracy
[...] The other is Bunting’s point (most often made with regard to the BNP) that voters are alienated and lashing out at the biggest parties. The result is that we are told indirectly that sensible folk will vote and vote establishment (the Guardian, daringly, going for the semi-establishment Lib Dem). [...]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS
28 Comments 72 Comments 21 Comments 49 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 22 Comments 69 Comments 44 Comments 25 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » john b posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » john b posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » So Much For Subtlety posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan » Jack C posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » bluepillnation posted on The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think » P Ve M posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » BenSix posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an "isolated" problem |