Can you sum up the purpose of the Lib Dems in a sentence? (Or ‘The Quest for the Lib Dem Holy Grail’).

Today’s Guardian carries an interview with comedian/actor Eddie Izzard: interesting for those of us who are fans (especially of his classic mid-90s’ shows), but also interesting for the problem it poses for those of us who are Lib Dems.

Asked about his politics, and his long-standing support for Labour (‘he describes himself as more Blair-ite than Brown-ite’), Eddie sweepingly sums up Labour and the Tories thus:

I just believe in the goodwill of people, the power of people to do something positive. And that’s why I’m in the Labour party. The Labour party believes in fairness, and the Conservative party is more about getting the country working well and rewarding high-flyers”

It’s an unremarkable distinction – variations of it are used by voters up and down the country, whether consciously or not, to define their tribal voting patterns. Labour = Fairness, Tories = Wealth-creation: this is pretty much the brand that assures the two larger parties of a core vote.

Which brings us to the age-old question: if you had to sum up the purpose of the Lib Dems in a sentence, what would you say?

In a sense, even to ask the question points to the problem of marketing liberalism: it’s a philosophy, a way of thinking, as much as it is a call to arms. Part of what makes people liberals is their refusal to believe that all questions do have a simple, binary answer. After all, we’re about Fairness AND Wealth-creation, and we’d argue you can’t have one without the other.

And that’s been a traditional problem for the party, when it tries to distil the pure essence of the party’s philosophy into a bite-size catechism. It’s why, in an attempt to be all-inclusive and tick every box, we end up with unwieldy policy paper titles like Trust in People: Make Britain Free, Fair and Green. Or why, at the other extreme, we end up with vacuous, philosophy-free policy paper titles like Make it Happen.

Ever since the 2005 general election – and the failure of the Lib Dems to make the electoral breakthrough that the unique circumstances of the 2001-05 Parliament afforded the party – there has been a quest to find the Lib Dem Holy Grail: ‘a narrative’.

So here’s a piece of homework for LDV readers. Find that Holy Grail. Sum up the party’s purpose in a phrase, a sentence at most, which encapsulates the Lib Dem approach to politics in a way which will resonate with voters.

My suggestion? “Liberalism: letting everyone be free to come together”. But I’m sure you can do better.

Incidentally, he may not be a Lib Dem, but Eddie Izzard did come up with his own definition of a liberal, which I could sign up to:

Politically, I am a radical liberal, that is my position. I would be a liberal, but the image of a liberal is sort of – because left and right have been in power for a long time in Britain, the image of a liberal is one of, “Oh… I’m not sure, and you’re…? Oh, really? And you…? Oh, really? I’m on the fence here…” But not for me, I am passionate about free health service for all, that’s a world idea, I think that’s very groovy, but also, if you have an idea, in small businesses or businesses don’t have to be sort of rape and pillaging things; that can be groovy. “Revolutionary liberal,” that sounds better to me, I think, storm the House of Parliament, kick the fucking doors in, get in there and say, “Look, we’ll pay for the damage.” Have a revolution, just budget for it, yeah? You know…

“Have a revolution, just budget for it.” Perhaps we’ve found our Holy Grail?

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/6661 for Twitter and emails.
Advert

107 Comments

  • For fence-sitters everywhere – it’s about balance.

  • Grammar Police 2nd Dec '08 - 8:10pm

    My old favourite:

    What do we want? Gradual Change! When do we want it? In due course!

  • I’ve been told by an activist in the North London borough in which Mr Izzard lives that he requested one of our ‘Save Our Post Office!’ posters for his front window, so he can’t be too ill disposed towards us!

  • Much hilarity had at the dinner table over this.

    Best anti-suggestion so far: ‘We want action, not slogans’.

  • Chris Stanbra 2nd Dec '08 - 9:29pm

    I thought Freedom, Fairness, Trust was pretty good (yes, I know its not a sentence). I would like us to emphasise the Radical more. I don’t see myself or the party as left, right, centre or any other position. I see us as Radical. We trust the people. We’re about giving them the freedom to live their lives in the way they want to in a spirit of tolerance for others. i.e. we want to enable people to live their lives in the way they want to as long as in doing so they don’t impinge on other people’s right to live their lives in a different way.

  • Richard Huzzey 2nd Dec '08 - 9:32pm

    Chris – I also like the idea of reclaiming radicalism. I liked Paddy’s idea of us occupying the “radical centre” of British politics.

    As an aside, viewing this page in the US, the Google Ads are for Eddie Izzard ringtones!

  • Word “Liberalism” derives from latin word liber, free.

    How about: “Liberal Democrats are for freedom of choice?”

  • Thomas Hemsley 2nd Dec '08 - 10:33pm

    Liberalism is fairness, freedom and democracy. (Hackneyed, I know).

  • Mark Littlewood 2nd Dec '08 - 11:10pm

    How about “Liberal Democrats: The plane speaking party”….?

    I’ll get my coat….

  • Brian Powell 2nd Dec '08 - 11:19pm

    The drugs war between Geoffrey and Alex would be interesting but they are both wrong. The only way to beat the dealers, is to go back to an experiment run by the Thatcher government, between 87/88 – 92/3, in one of the towns on the periphery of Manchester, Bury I think. I realise using a Thatcherite idea is abhorrant to the vast majority but personally if it works I don’t care where it comes from. A licensed doctor registered every addict in said town and provided their drug of choice on prescription. The dealers went away because they couldn’t compete. In the final year crime dropped by an effective 55%. A £100 per day heroin user was supplied two days pure heroin and cutting agent and syringes etc for £4:00. As for the sentence to sum up the lib-dems I don’t have a clue.

  • Clegg's Candid Fan 2nd Dec '08 - 11:44pm

    “We’ll say whatever we think will keep our career politicians in a job”?

  • “We’re prepared to shoot ourselves in the foot if nobody else will”

  • Andrew Turvey 3rd Dec '08 - 12:03am

    One of the problems is that the Lib Dems have such a diverse range of views within the party particularly on economic issues, where they range from thatcherite to socialist.

    Socially, lib dems tend to be libertarian but too extreme for anyone with ambition to want to advertise that (would you headline your local focus with a call to legalise porn? Didn’t think so!)

    Political liberalism – supporting freedom of thought, expression, democratic rights, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law etc is probably the most consistent ideology and one that the public might want to identify with – particularly given the authoritarian slide of British government,

    How about, paraphrasing and misattributing Voltaire:

    “Liberals will defend your right to say what you think, even if we disagree”

  • Hywel Morgan 3rd Dec '08 - 12:14am

    I think Alex has a good line of thought :-)

    “Vote Liberal Democrat. Because Richard Littlejohn doesn’t.”

    More seriously I think “It’s about Freedom” is as good as we’ve come up with in recent years.

    As a rhetorical flourish Charles “there’s a simple difference between us and the other parties. We’re liberals. They aren’t” was good if slightly circular.

  • being a bit controversial 3rd Dec '08 - 12:18am

    Freedom – anything more duplicates it – if you add fairness you are saying the same thing – ie freedom of opportunity in life.

    to be a bit controversial, all parties are defined by the caricatures of their opposition. The Tories very name is an example. The Tories image as being for the greedy has informed an image of them being for people who believe in wealth creation. Labour is defined as for the working people after the tories try to scare richer people.

    I would say that if we were a supermarket we’d be Waitrose, a niche product primarially aimed at the middle classes, gradually growing market share but pandering to a different market to Asda and Tesco (Labour and the Tories!)

    The free democrats in germany once branded themselves the “Partei der Besserverdienenden” (“Party of the better-earning people”), this has defined them. Not necessarially a good example! I noticed Obama constantly championing the middle classes.

    How about we market ourselves as the party for the middle classes and those aspiring to be one?

  • How about: ‘Can’t decide? Vote Lib-Dem!’

  • Clegg's Candid Fan 3rd Dec '08 - 12:27am

    I think I’ve got it! How about this?

    “The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”

  • “We will do unto you as you do unto us”

    Erm..!

  • Alternatively, one of my favorites on the doorstep is: “I don’t care who you vote for, just make sure you do vote.”

  • Femme de Resistance 3rd Dec '08 - 6:30am

    Liberalism: Balances power equally between the church, state, business, etc. so none is big enough to dominate people’s lives.

  • I’ve always been rather sad that Izzard isn’t a LibDem considering I agree with most of his views. I do think he is really a LibDem but just grew up with Labour as the only real left-wing party.

    To be hounest I think that if we were actually the party in power or the main opposition we would be the ones taking Labour’s tag (which doesn’t really apply to them anymore anyway). We are about fairness and equality, freedom and democracy- much like the tiny scrap of old labour that still pretends they own their party.

    The Tory ideology, to my mind is one of fundamental selfishness, but Labour (or rather true Labour) i have less of a problem with.

    As for slogans:

    ‘The LibDems: The ones your racist next door neighbor warned you about’

    Or

    ‘The LibDems: Like Jesus, right down to the sandals’

    Or

    ‘The LibDems: Empower your brain cells’

  • The problem with slogans is that most of the effective ones have already been snapped up by the advertising agencies, leaving what’s left sound cliched and unoriginal.

    If you look at the slogans that have actually worked – ‘Things can only get better’, the all-pervading ‘Yes we can’ and so on, they’re not about values at all, but rather about the process of implementing those values. If we are going for a value-based slogan, it’s best to frame it in this context. And a great source of value/process slogans are the dreadfully melodramatic sentences you get during movie trailers. Thus, my entry is:

    Liberal Democrats: The fight for freedom has only just begun…

  • Grammar Police 3rd Dec '08 - 11:00am

    @ Charlotte – I’m not sure that’s quite right. Any party doing this would come up with a million-and-one different reasons – some contradictory. It reflects the fact that all our parties are broad churches because of the electoral system.

    As a Lib Dem it doesn’t particularly shock me that there isn’t a catch-all slogan that will justify our party’s approach to every issue – but then again, I don’t think there’s one for any of the parties, with the exception of maybe UKIP – and that’s not a compliment!

    Narratives aren’t just about slogans – they’re about the theme running through all our policies. A yardstick to measure policies against.

    Most people don’t know much about parties’ policies. They may know a little about one or two policies – but for most people the policy details don’t matter, except so far as they outline/support the general approach of the party to issues [the number of times I get survey returns back: did/do you support the Iraq war? No. Do you support compulsory ID cards? No. Do you support the expansion of Heathrow? No. How will you vote? Labour - similarly lots of Tory voters want compulsory ID cards. I'm not saying these voters are wrong to vote the way they do - just that they don't seem terribly influenced by some major policy decisions].

    Rightly or wrongly people *think* they know how Lab or Con will approach an issue. Far fewer people have that instinctive grasp of our approach, and that’s why we need to work on explaining that narrative.

    I think Clegg’s Candid Fan/Friend etc is probably quite right. And I think that the majority of members would agree that that’s our narrative – it’s about balance of competing interests. However, something that sounds a bit like Abe Lincoln has written it is probably not quite the right thing for the doorstep, or getting your Ds&Ps to join up.

  • Martin Land 3rd Dec '08 - 11:18am

    Liberal Democrats – because you matter!

    Liberal Democrats – the party of Vince Cable!

    Liberal Democrats – it’s what you want that matters!

    Liberal Democrats – standing up for communities!

    Liberal Democrats – the local party for local people!

    Liberal Democrats. Local. Energetic. Enthusiastic.

    Liberal Democrats. ACTION speaks louder than words.

    Liberal Democrats. Facing up to tomorrow’s problems today.

    Liberal Democrats. Believe in us; because we believe in you.

    Liberal Democrats. For a Free and Just Society.

    Liberal Democrats. Community, Liberty, Security.

    That’ll do for now.

  • Thomas Hemsley said:
    “Liberalism is fairness, freedom and democracy.”

    Compared to what Eddie Izzard said (“The Labour party believes in fairness, and the Conservative party is more about getting the country working well and rewarding high-flyers”) said I can see too problems:

    1) Labour is already perceived to represent fairness, and defining Liberal Democrats to also represent fairness doesn’t distinguish then from the Labour Party.

    2) Labour and Conservatives were defined by one value each. If Liberal Democrats are defined by three, it seems they are indecisive. You should be able to decide, which value is the most important and defining. (And if it’s fairnes, you can as well merge with Labour, because in the public eyes you won’t differ from them, anyway.)

  • David Morton 3rd Dec '08 - 11:59am

    Charlotte Gore’s “exist to Deliver Leaflets” is scalpel sharp as is the excellent Waitrose reference. I find the focus on Freedom/Liberty reassuring but is there room for some thing else?

    1. what about Gaian thinking ? An Insertion of the word “Green” is lame but do we/can we assert ecological balance as a modern imperitive along side liberty as party of the partys core? or is that heresy ?

    2. very little mention of localism. ‘m amazed there hasn’t been more coverage/comment on the recent BBC research on “lonliness indicators” and the most “lonley neighbourhoods.

    We are very good on individual and state and all of the interactions /abuses between but does a slogan have to emcompass more of intermediating community ?

    3. Globalism ? All this “Speaker Lenthall” stuff at the moment is great for union society types of liberty but how much of ur individual needs for fredom these days are from gobal non tate actors ?

    4. Power. I think some time we focus too much on liberty as being a negative. I always feel the Labour/Conservative argement is about how the national cake is divided where as liberalism is a theory of power.

  • Lib Dems should stand for Liberty in all forms. This includes respect for private property, free markets, balanced budgets, a non-intervenionist foreign policy, sound money and most of all individual liberty.

    Lib Dems = Liberty

    “Liberty is Popular!” Ron Paul (US Congressman – TX).

  • David Morton 3rd Dec '08 - 12:42pm

    You take me to me to the next point Alix. Is this slogan an attempt to promote a party narrative or a party Brand ? As was pointed out up thread most slogans actually don’t talk about values. ” Every little Helps” ” Everyone deserves Waitrose” ” Your M and S” ” Why pay more ?” all either are about aspiration/ feeling or whats in it for me? teritory.

    It sems to be a slogan either needs to be about core values in which case we can’t escape a clasic “power of three” The Lib Dems are/will/do x,y,z. If you go down this route then we will end up with a derrivative of free,fair and green.

    Or we can ditch that approach altogether and have the slogan as a brand.

    Thats when 70’s songs and some of charlotte gores stuff becomes really, really fascinating.

  • Dave Muckledug 3rd Dec '08 - 12:43pm

    Fairness: Voters have heard it a million times and regard it as mere platitude.
    Freedom: Most are under the illusion that that battle has already been won.
    Democracy: See ‘freedom’.

    Many I know among the working classes don’t care for such ‘high falutin’ ideology. They want 6 cans in the fridge and paedophiles put through a mincer.

    However… ‘Do what you want to do’ would probably resonate.

  • Alex Wilcock wrote: “Though I’d probably not model us on the FDP (our poll ratings only converge when we’re doing at our worst and they’re doing at their best)”

    That might partly be because in Germany there’s proportional representation. Some of the people who in UK might vote for Lib Dems in Germany vote for the Greens, for instance.

  • David Morton 3rd Dec '08 - 12:50pm

    Can I just throw my Lib Dem Philosophical Bingo into the mix ( Yes, Really..)

    For one week a month I monitor all my media junkie imput. Every time a Lib Dem spokesperson on the news calls for extra state spending ( double points if its the primary solution to a problem) or more government action (double points for primary legislation) I chalk up a point.

    The score is always high. This begs the question. does a slogan have to reflect what our core beliefs are or what we actually campaign on ?

  • Liberalism… because everything else has failed.

  • Something for Eddie Izzard (and prescient during a recession):

    “smiles are better”

  • Different Duncan 3rd Dec '08 - 1:00pm

    “Government for you instead of against you”

  • David Allen 3rd Dec '08 - 1:15pm

    Alix:

    Liberal Democrats – the party that reaches the parts other parties don’t reach….

  • Matthew Huntbach 3rd Dec '08 - 1:19pm

    Why did you set this task when we already have that well known statement of purpose in our constitution:

    “No-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”

    It is written on my party membership card, and does the job perfectly.

  • David Morton 3rd Dec '08 - 1:23pm

    Freedom: Unless you want to smoke in a Pub or buy cheap lager from Tesco.

    Fairness: We’ll use state power just as much as the other lot. But don’t worry its Guardian values not the Daily Mail.

    Greener: Unless its about weekly bin collections in which case hammer you with Bin Tax messages.

    On Your Side : Except for the bits where council officers advice is contrary of course.

    Ok. I’m being negative for effect but my core point is that a sloagn has to address the orthodoxy/orthopraxis debate. It has to adres what we actually do as well as believe.

  • David Allen 3rd Dec '08 - 1:24pm

    Seriously now:

    Labour and Tories work for their elite paymasters – big, powerful vested interests in business, the unions, and government, and a few seriously rich and seriously dodgy individuals.

    Liberal Democrats work for the people of Britain.

  • Richard Church 3rd Dec '08 - 1:40pm

    It’s there on your membership card:-

    ‘No-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity’.

  • David Allen 3rd Dec '08 - 1:44pm

    Richard: you’re right of course but couldn’t Labour (and arguably even the Tories) largely claim they agree?

  • “LibDem and loving it”

  • Mark Williams 3rd Dec '08 - 2:01pm

    Councillors’ allowances and the occasional MP’s salary plus staff allowances for family members … without the risk of serious power.

  • Thomas Hemsley 3rd Dec '08 - 2:40pm

    “Hackneyed and wrong! Liberalism is inimical to democracy – there is always a tension between them that needs resolved.”

    Hackeneyed, yes. Wrong, no. You can’t have a liberal society without democracy.

    How about: Liberalism – we moan, so you don’t have to. :P

  • Liam Pennington 3rd Dec '08 - 4:55pm

    Eddie Izzard was one of ours, wasn’t he?

    “Liberal Demcrats – the real alternative”

    It works, it makes short, sharp sense.

    Labour – tired
    Conservatives – failed

    Liberal Democrats? We’re the real alternative to the mainstream.

  • The Liberal Democrats; high tax, high spend and in favour of handing as much power as possible to the EU.

    This was the answer I gave when called by the party to ask why I had not renewed my membership. No argument against these points was forthcomming.

  • Jock wrote:

    “But you can have a liberal society without a state.”

    Somalia, perhaps?

  • slogans don’t have to sum up our entire philosophy in a sentence – “change we need” and “yes we can” hardly did that. Ok, perhaps a slightly different political culture, but i’d still keep it simple:

    “The Liberal Democrats – on your side”

    or

    “The Liberal Democrats – fighting for you”

  • alternatively, “let’s face it, we can hardly be worse than the other too”

  • *gah, obviously ‘two’

  • Thomas Hemsley 3rd Dec '08 - 9:13pm

    “You can’t have a liberal society without democracy.

    You can’t have a liberal state without democracy, perhaps.

    But you can have a liberal society without a state.”

    That society still needs democracy, even if it is not established parliamentary democracy.

  • Well if you want something vague but all-encompassing – “Liberal Democrats – real people for the real world”

  • Matthew Huntbach 3rd Dec '08 - 10:18pm

    Labour and Tory may be able to agree with “No-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”, but with things like this it’s where you place the emphasis. We might all agree with “fairness” and “wealth creation”, but that doesn’t stop one being seen as Labour’s main purpose and the other as the Tories’ (whatever happened to “keeping things the same”? which surely ought to be what a “Conservative” Party is about).

    I’m not sure of the history of the “poverty, ignorance and conformity” slogan, but it seems to have been designed deliberately to suggest a version of liberalism which isn’t what is now called “libertarianism”. The libertarian would say “no-one shall be enslaved by the state” and refuse to acknowledge the existence of any other form of slavery.

  • Andrew Turvey 3rd Dec '08 - 10:23pm

    Our slogan, brand and ideals have to be built on a positive ideology. Sorry, but Centrism, reasonableness and so on won’t do!

    I like the idea before, turned on it’s head:

    “Freeing Britain from poverty, ignorance and conformity”

  • Andrew Turvey 3rd Dec '08 - 10:37pm

    Political ideas are meaningless if no one would ever sensibly argue the opposite.

    However, I think many conservatives and many socialists would actually disagree with “Freedom from conformity”. Conservatives traditionally see social pressures as a positive force that strengthens society and makes communities more cohensive. Non-conformity is bad and puts that all at risk. Liberals say non-conformism is good.

    Soialists also see conformism as good – they see it in the context of solidarity, equality and fairness. Again, liberals want people to be able to have different treatment, in the way they want.

    So here you have a slogan that does actually mean something, and does distinguish ourselves from our political opponents.

    It’s also popular and timely, given the CCTV and Damien Green society we have ended up in!

  • Laurence,
    I don’t think that was actually Paddy on SI all those years ago, but I see where you’re going…

    It’s about getting the best of all worlds and the worst of none.

    It’s about maximising our potential.

    It’s about delivery.

    Isn’t it?

  • Given that to succeed you need to displace Labour as the party of the left, just as they displaced the Liberals, perhaps you would be better served by emphasising that Labour work for the public sector trade unions rather than the public.

    Lib-Dems: lefties that work for the public, not just the public sector trade unions.

  • Matthew Huntbach 4th Dec '08 - 10:52am

    Dave B

    There may have been a time when Labour worked for the public sector trade unions, but that was a long time ago. Just as there may have been a time, long, long ago, when the Conservatives worked for old duffers who didn’t want the world to change rather than for smart City folk who’d smash anything up so long as there was a profit in it.

  • Liberal Eye 4th Dec '08 - 12:52pm

    For myself I would simply say:

    “Freedom and opportunity”

    Freedom has to be central but if left as a stand-alone word it can too easily be misunderstood in any number or ways – for instance as narrowly political freedom which never sways a majority of votes.

    Linking it explicitly with “opportunity” makes it clear that freedom is not some ivory tower ideal but is the necessary and intensely practical foundation for real-world aspirations – whether you are mainly motivated by the economic dimension or by art or sport or whatever.

    As for the notion of the political party as a brand raised by several contributors to this thread, the best definition of what makes for a successful brand is:

    “A compelling promise, consistently honoured.”

    And therein lies much of the LibDems continued lack of electoral success at Westminster – we fail on both parts. Why this should be so and how to fix it is the Party’s most urgent problem.

  • David Allen 4th Dec '08 - 1:04pm

    ‘No-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity’.

    Andrew, you rightly point out that Labour and Tories would not have put in the “conformity” bit. However, I think they would both have been comfortable with the “poverty” and “ignorance” bits. So, when you say that it is a distinctive message for us, the distinctive bit does really rather boil down to “We like oddballs!” Which may be true, but, is that the best one-line slogan to maximise our support?

    Mastthew, you rightly point out how well the whole piece is drafted to make it clear what we stand for. To me it has a beautifully old-fashioned moral tone – a bit Reithian BBC – which modern politics, to its detriment, has largely lost. It does still look good on the membership card, and it does still provide a vital reference as to what we stand for. But we do also need one-liner soundbites I’m afraid, and I don’t think it does for that.

  • David Allen 4th Dec '08 - 1:18pm

    “Freedom, fairness, and trust.”

    Well, I like the first two. “Freedom” on its own is unbalanced. “Freedom and fairness” shows what we have successfully learnt from forming an alliance between freedom-loving Liberals and fairness-loving SDPers.

    “Trust” seems wrong now, though. None of us politicians can reasonably expect the electorate to trust us these days. To suggest that we deserve trust, without giving a pretty good reason, just sounds arrogant and off-putting.

    I like “Freedom, Fairness, and the Future”.

    We care about the state of the planet in 50 years time, which is why we don’t want WW3 to be a Christian crusade against the Muslim world, and we don’t want to have burnt all the oil. This is our message for the young. And it alliterates, so it must be right!

  • Liberal Eye 4th Dec '08 - 2:38pm

    The trouble with “fairness” is that it means, as Humpty Dumpty said, “Whatever I want it to mean”.

    Liberals and Conservatives both believe in fairness but understand quite different things by it. “Fairness” was the Conservatives’ primary justification for the Poll Tax while to most Liberals it was one of the most unfair ever devised.

  • “I like “Freedom, Fairness, and the Future”.”

    I still have to see a political party that is against future. Shouldn’t it be something which distinguish Liberal Democrats from other parties?

  • David Allen 4th Dec '08 - 6:54pm

    OK Anonymous, I would concede that “future” fails to set us apart from the Greens. But as for the Tories and Labour, they supported an illegal war for oil in Iraq, and they show every sign of burning it all up until it runs out, so what sort of future will they leave us with?

  • Antony Hook 7th Dec '08 - 7:44pm

    The great Enzo Ferrari was once asked what makes a beautiful car. He said, “the most beautiful car is the one that wins the most races.”

    I can’t help but feel a similar rule applies to political slogans.

  • Terry Gilbert 9th Dec '08 - 11:25pm

    Most of these slogans have too many syllables for the average voter. Always pitch it at a reading age of 7, and you won’t go far wrong. Depressing but true, in my experience.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDavid-1 31st Oct - 3:38pm
    simon's approval tells you all you need to know.
  • User AvatarCharlie 31st Oct - 3:34pm
    The British ruling class under Labour has forgotten what 300 years of trade and empire took to learn. Since the rise of social sciences and...
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 31st Oct - 3:33pm
    ... and which pays in full for the unique privilege of being bailed out by the rest of us.
  • User AvatarStevan Rose 31st Oct - 3:31pm
    We should ban dracula fake teeth as this is offensive to those with dental problems and Frankenstein costumes are offensive to transplant patients and those...
  • User AvatarDavid Allen 31st Oct - 3:27pm
    T-J, you've invented for yourself the idea that I now support the Greens, which is a bad start. I think they and Labour are now...
  • User AvatarSimon McGrath 31st Oct - 3:23pm
    @RC "We need a finance sector that serves the country’s wider interests" You mean one which employs many hundred of thousands people in generally well...