In fact, anything under 20% would cost them a huge number of seats seeing as Kennedy managed well over that benchmark.

Thanks for taking the time to give a write-up on Liberal Vision’s report (even if you’re very critical of it)- especially impressive given the lateness of the hour that you posted it.

I’m now even more disappointed that you’re weren’t able to accept our invitation to speak at the Liberal Vision fringe meeting on Monday because of prior commitments, because there weren’t too many people who challenged the psephology (most of those who have been critical have based thier arguments on the assertion that the pamphlet is “unhelpful” not that it’s “wrong” or even “stupid”).

I think your case merits a full response/rebuttal from Liberal Vision and I promise to provide one, but as am just leaving Bournemouth and won’t have internet access until late tonight, I won’t be able to do write it until tomorrow.

In every individual seat it is relative vote share which counts - this isn’t extendable to national figures, though.

As much as I support tax cuts across the board, this is not a way to win the argument for them and first priority is tax cuts for the poorest and removing people’s (and corporation’s) dependency on the state.
The first part is almost won, the second has a long way to go battling received wisdom about ‘necessary’ state interventions, but the LibDems are naturally closer to that position.