I also like “A Liberal is an anarchist who has compromised with reality”, but I must admit I was talking about Liberalism. There is a party called Liberal Democrats, there is a widespread system called liberal democracy but there is no ideology called “Liberal Democracy”.

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

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

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.

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!

“Fairness is not a word universally cherished within Labour, and one senior centre-left activist sighs if she hears it. She said: “I didn’t join the party for things to be ‘fair’. I joined to get nearer to utopia. That’s why I prefer the word ‘aspiration’.”"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/04/queens-speech-fairness

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.

“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.

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.

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

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?

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!

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

“Freeing Britain from poverty, ignorance and conformity”

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.

Liberal Democrats are NEITHER one thing, NOR the other, but SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.

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.