“Our current problem is not technical or organisational but that the party lacks a sense of overarching purpose”
While other people worry about the EU negotiations, Harper Lee passing or you know having a job, I spent this afternoon burrowing into the review of the 2015 General Election campaign by the Lib Dem’s Campaigns and Communications Committee. A cynic might suggest I was procrastinating from packing for a move to another country!
I tweeted as I went along:
I'm going to have a read of the @JGurling review and probably live tweet while I go #LibDems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Aside from Gurling himself I've met and rate everyone on the review group #LibDems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Definite skew towards the party's traditional activist base. That may or may not be a good thing. We shall see.
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
"We received feedback from over 7500 party members…" Probably should have written something then
#libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review noting how optimistic everyone is despite our drubbing. Probably not warranted TBH #libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review seems to suggest problems started early. Which is almost certainly true #LibDems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
To paraphrase: 'Abolition of tuition fees not a priority but public and media thought it was" #LibDems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Too much emphasis on showing coalition could work almost certainly led us to be perceived as too close to Tories #LibDems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Apparently still a consensus that we did the right thing by entering coalition. Subsequent Tory maj makes that case hard to make #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
"…no polling of note was undertaken in first two years of coalition" #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review uses language of 'core vote' which probably counts as a victory for @markpack and David Howarth #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
"…targeting erred on the optimistic side". Something of an understatement! #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
"…local leadership took a back seat to the demands of Westminster". Maybe but priveliging the local over the national is a #Libdem vice
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Did stuff at Westminster but didn't get the credit. Worse got blamed for Tory actions and were not credited with stopping bads #libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
@FactCollector Wonder if there's rise in negative partisanship in UK as well as UK. And that screwed #LibDemshttps://t.co/fDnVSJHhcB
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
We needed climate more favourable to co-operation for coalition to work politically #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review says there was no single campaign director. Wasn't that @paddyashdown 's job?
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review highlights shifting between slogans as a problem. True but the fact they were all crap to start with was worse #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
@FactCollector By recommendations I meant executive summary
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Re tuition fees. I do think activists – myself included – who campaigned for abolition to remain policy must take some blame for disaster
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review attributes increase in #libdems vote share among 18-24s to fees pledge. That seems like pure speculation to me.
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
I could be wrong but my feeling is that secret courts were more of an issue for activists than voters #libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
There's a strong defence of seat polling, which I didn't expect. Apparently told us to switch from fighting Lab to SNP in Scotland #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Doesn't talk about whether those polls were overoptimistic and therefore contributed to overoptimistic targeting #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
OK to be fair Ashdown's role is discussed in more detail on p.12
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Talk about the priority of full slate of #LibDem PPCs. TBH not sure this should be a priority if it means selecting unsuitable people.
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Eastleigh was apparently a trigger for Tories to up their anti-LD ground operations. Making Chris Huhne seem even more of a dick than before
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
That by-elections win was a real false dawn. Brought increased attention from Tories and kept Clegg in place as #Libdem leader.
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review says HQ was slow to de-target seats that failed to meet KPIs #libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
@FactCollector I always got the impression working in Bristol W that as we were incumbents there was no chance of de-targetting. So it was
— Robin McGhee (@RobinMcGhee) February 19, 2016
"Campaign leadership should not be the sole responsibility of PPCs". A massive amen to that!
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Being a good MP and frontman for campaign requires a different skillset from managing a target seat campaign
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
"We need to establish a culture that welcomes feedback" Pretty damning that this needs saying in a liberal party
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
"Every election should be treated as important in its own right" NOOOOO!!!!!!!!! UK is so centralised that GE really is the one that matters
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Slightly revising my earlier position "look left. look right" would have had some merit if #Libdems had been less hated
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
#Libdems digital campaign focused on fundraising rather than winning votes
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Basically concludes that there was nothing that could have been done to improve member morale separate from national trends. Probably fair.
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Organisers need leadership skills training #Libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review captures well that working for #libdems is often a terrible job
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Horrid hours for awful pay really undermine the ability to build experience in these roles
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Review's advocacy of recruiting organisers early only works if they actually stay in place
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
I realise I know very little about how the party raises money #libdems
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
So what do I think of the Gurling review overall? (1/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
It’s pretty sensible. I don’t really disagree with any of the recommendations. (2/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Even emphasising importance of elections other than GE contains kernel of sensible idea: help build capacity for GE (3/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
But these are tweaks to our campaigning. Which are to be welcomed and probably what review was asked for but not enough (4/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Current problem is not technical or organisational but that the party lacks a sense of overarching purpose (5/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
Very hard to explain to voters what we are for besides equidistance and specific policies that produce indifference or hostility (6/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
That needs to come from leader, membership and wider liberal ecosystem (to the extent it exists) not from party functionaries (7/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
So well done to the report’s authors. They’ve done their job admirably. Now is the time for the rest of us to do ours (8/8)
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
OK. That's me done with the Gurling review for now.
— Mark Mills (@FactCollector) February 19, 2016
I wrote my own post-mortem back in June in case you are interested.
