Liberal Vision

Creating a coalition narrative

If the coalition partners accepts that they needs a separate narrative separate, and it is unclear if they do, how would you create such a story?

The story has to begin with the wishes of the voters. No party was given an overall majority and given the economic conditions the country faced in May last year, the parties came together to govern in the national interest. This is territory already well trodden by Nick Clegg and David Cameron. The trickier part is to find a way to explain the aspirations of the coalition while allowing for the narrative to show the different identities of both parties.

Both Clegg and Cameron have talked about changing the relationship between the State and the citizen.  On some policies they clearly agree while on others they have opposing views on the best way to remake the State.

A framework that allows the parties to discuss the coalition and explain to the electorate what it is attempting to achieve, may also be one that can give each party the space to distinguish itself. The remaking of the State could be the the thing that will drive that story.

There is a further narrative possibility here as well: the new politics. Cameron made it clear when he was in opposition that he wanted to move away from ‘Punch and Judy’ politics that characterises Westminster and turns off voters. A politics that recognises that not everyone agrees with everything, that no one person can have a monopoly on good ideas is one way of explaining why politicians who sit around a Cabinet table may argue but can work together too.

Time for a coalition narrative

All communication professionals know that if you fail to provide a narrative someone else will frame one for you. What is more, it is likely to be one that you don’t like.

After the bruising electoral verdict of 5 May, the Liberal Democrats are searching for a way to distinguish the party from the Conservatives.

As the party has already found, this is difficult.

It seems that the plan is to publicly say when they don’t support certain policies.  This was done over immigration and could be a template. It has been supported by the Conservatives too.

But done too much and voters will naturally ask why on earth are you in government with a party you have so little in common with.

Perhaps a better way is to develop a coalition narrative. The repeated messages would explain why the parties went into coalition, why coalitions sometimes disagree, how this new political arrangement is working and what it hopes to achieve.

Each party could keep its own identity but collaborate on this one area. To do so, a communication adviser from each party would have to work together to ensure consistency of message and help create a framework that allows disagreements to be aired in such a way that does not damage the government.

In all the talk of arguments and Ministers out of sympathy with each other one thing seems to have been forgotten. All governments face such problems. The Liberal Democrats and their coalition partners could turn this into a virtue by showing that people can have different views and still work together.

The public, I suspect, would much rather that happen than sniping, background briefings and the usual political shenanigans that occur when relationships break down.

Coalition would benefit from AV

Channel 4  have an interesting report based on a YouGov poll showing that AV would benefit Liberal Democrats and Conservatives at the expense of Labour.

The analysis is that Liberal Democrat second preferences have shifted (since the last Parliament) from favouring Labour to favouring Conservatives. This would benefit the Conservatives in the Labour/Conservative marginals, perhaps to the tune of 30 seats.

This should not surprise. The Liberal Democrat first preference vote is now down to around 10-12%. The major losses will be from voters who treat the party as an alternative to Labour. The fiction of a progressive majority has again been shown to be a fiction. There are more than two tribes in British politics.

It is also no cause for complacency. Current national polls would still give Labour a majority under either voting system.

It does though beg the question why the Conservatives are so hostile to change.

I meet few Conservatives who make a principled case for defending FPTP.

It’s all either ‘I like what I know’; fabricated nonsense, like the No Campaign’s BNP claims; or most commonly tribal advantage (they think they win more under FPTP). If this poll is correct they could be making an historic mistake.

The Islam & Bankers Forum

We have a campaign solution for Baroness Warsi that will kill two birds with one stone (no inference intended to the criminal justice practices of the Islamic Republic).

She and the Chancellor  should set up a forum for mutual understanding between representatives of Muslim communities and bankers.

These are two groups do mostly good in the world misrepresented by the actions of extremists, some of whom live half a world away. They are united in misunderstanding. Islam prohibits lending money for interest.

Surely if the Muslim Council of Britain and the British Bankers Association can learn to get along, many good things will follow?

Less flippantly her comments about discrimination against Muslims have some basis in fact. Muslims in the UK are more likely to be referred to negatively and unfairly as a group than many other groups.

Whether it is a something that has achieved “dinner-party acceptability” I find less credible. That sounds like a really bad evening out.

It certainly feels less pervasive than the anti-Irish bigotry commonplace when I was growing up in the 1980s. We do not for example see comedians (other than Muslim ones) appearing on popular television making the equivalent of thick-Paddy jokes.

Nor would I expect a Muslim neighbour to introduce himself to me (seriously) as “Don’t worry I’m a loyalist” as happened at college.

The common thread between the two is that the terror threat of the time was linked to extremist elements in both communities. Whilst being born on the island of Ireland did not make you a terrorist, it did not help community relations that nearly all the terrorists were Irish.

Until then, the threat from militant Islamic groups retreats, it is highly likely the threatened and unsophisticated are going to express their feelings crudely and unfairly.

The Conservative Party Chair though feels labels like ‘moderate’ are ‘extremist’ unhelpful.

I find this a little bizarre. It is perfectly correct to label unbending interpretations of religions and political philosophies that exhort violence, with no concern for human life as extreme. It may not be her interpretation of her faith, but she is… well moderate.

If she needs alternate labels perhaps she should consider ‘liberal’.

Meanwhile the Islam & Bankers forum is surely a force for tolerance whose time has come.

Lead on Baroness, lead on.

“If LDs sink then Dave is out”

HAT TIP : Read this from politcalbetting.com……..

You have to see the chart….but here is a taster… (click on the link to read full article and see the chart…. you want to…i know you want to……)

” ….The above chart shows the actual poll shares achieved at the general elections from 1979 onwards. The 2015 numbers are the current PAPA numbers (Mike’s polling average). It also shows the GE turnout % (green line) and the combined share of Labour plus the LibDems (dotted line).

What does it tell us?

Firstly, it shows that there is quite some truth in the notion that Labour and the LibDems have historically fed off each other’s vote. Their combined vote has traditionally been a little over 50%, but this went up to the high 50s during Labour’s time in power. The Labour view that the LibDems were ‘on our side’ is not entirely unjustified – and hence the bitter feelings of betrayal that many lefty voters now feel about the LibDem decision to get in bed with Dave. This is very dangerous for Dave. Labour’s vote translates disproportionately into seats as their vote gets towards 40%. When Labour and Tories are neck and neck in the polls that means, I’m afraid, that Labour are well ahead in seats. Equalising constituencies and sorting postal votes out will help Dave, but only so much. If the LibDems sink then Dave is out.

Secondly, current polling shows that the LibDems’ joining a coalition with Dave has not apparently broken the tradition. The Tory polling remains steady in the high 30s – to 40s range, and Labour is up wholly at the LibDems’ expense. This gives Clegg a sharp dilemma – it seems the lefty half of the party has drifted to the red camp and I don’t think they’re coming back. At 12.5% the LibDems are just not going to win many seats at a GE and the ones they do win will be due to big name local incumbents. The marginals (and Scotland?) will be gone. My own (FPTP based) model has the LibDems gaining just 22 seats at the current level in the polls and an enormous Labour majority. The LibDems would be dead (and Dave too) if current polls were actual GE vote shares.

This raises some serious questions about tactical voting. I think historically the vast majority of tactical voting has been Labour and LibDem voters supporting whoever would keep out the local Tory. We have never seen much tactical voting by Tories – if they are not happy they just stay at home, as the clear alignment of Tory and Turnout lines shows. But now that the LibDems are proving to be good partners in government, I think it is fair to expect there will in future be some Blue / Yellow tactical voting to keep Labour out of some marginals.

And that leaves the LibDems and Dave with some very clear messages …….

……The LibDems’ future lies not in being the third party but in being the conscience of a permanent centre right alignment based on civil liberties and sound money…”

Ok you know thr drill..click on the above link to read the rest….