After voting for the Conservative party in the last General Election, I abruptly left the Conservatives and joined the Lib Dems. It appears over 10,000 people have taken a similar step in joining the Party since the EU Referendum. Every extra member is a positive BUT c.98% of the population are not members of political parties. It is the 98% this Party must attract on General Election day (importantly, date TBC).
I am not advocating populist policies. I do not want Tim Farron to mimic Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, or even Donald Trump. What I want is for the Lib Dems to appeal to more than just the political hard-core, as many people share our values. Even now in the shadow of Brexit many still question the relevance of the Lib Dems and (more worryingly) are confused about what they stand for – although Brexit has offered a huge opportunity to communicate this.
Could the Party be bolder and take the lead on achieving more representation for the masses? Remember that 48% currently feel unrepresented! The two party system is broken, the last General Election proved this. The Lib Dems lost the AV argument but let us take one thing from Nigel Farage – persistence pays off!
A platform of ‘Taking Britain back into Europe’ may well be to Tim Farron what the Iraq War was to Charles Kennedy. However, I have my doubts for two reasons:
- The EU Referendum was a great (and ill-advised) exercise of democracy in a time when the man in the street feels deserted by main stream politics. Campaigning against the implementation of the majority view, however misguided, will undoubtedly result in a further erosion of trust in the political system and politicians.
- It will be too late. Unless the General Election is called early, and if it is called on the appointment of a new Conservative leader I retract this point, the idea of re-entering Europe after we have left in 2018/19 will generate further uncertainty. If Armageddon has not materialised – as I suspect it won’t as the impact of Brexit will be incremental over time – then anger amongst the 98% of non-political party members will dissipate, as will the traction of this campaign.
Yes, the anti-Brexit campaign is a rallying cry that disgruntled pro-Europeans can gather around, but will it bring a sustained increase in Party support and influence? I fear not, but I hope to be proved wrong. Only evidencing the value of having the Lib Dems in power and being part of the decision making process at the highest level will convince people. Whilst the good work during the coalition has backfired in the short term, I believe history will take a different perspective, recognising the benefit of Lib Dem values in shaping government policy.
Let us be bolder. Let us make a much stronger and louder argument for an understandable form of proportional representation. The message of greater representation, a broader spectrum of voices in politics, and a greater meaning in each vote cast at the ballot box may well strike a chord.
* Chris Robson is a party member based in North East of England
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
The Joy of Six 1538
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Peter Chambers
Carl Pierce
Martin Eggleston
Peter Hirst
29 Comments
I think Tim’s appeal is basically: “Come for the EU. Stay for the Liberalism.”
I don’t think campaigning for anti-Brexit AND voting reform are remotely incompatible. But Brexit is the big news right now, so if you try to start the conversation about voting reform at the same time, only political geeks will hear you. That’s not to say that it isn’t a worthy cause – it is and I fully support it.
Being anti-Brexit has won us a load of new members in the short term. Let’s leverage that to promote voting reform and other liberal causes. But now is not the time to back off on our pro-EU stance.
Regarding the good work in coalition, political historians may look back on it positively, but everyone else will have forgotten come 2020 (or sooner).
My question is if we’re so willing to play the EU card for the ‘48%’ (as if Remain voters are some homogeneous bloc) that we question the outcome of the referendum, what have we got to say to the 52% who voted to leave, who are often the most dispossessed and sceptical of a system that doesn’t work for them?
really, a very welcome piece from chris
– his point about PR and persistence is well made and for me inspirational. We know that it is right and should begin now to push for it with the tenacity that farage and co used to push brexit. I’d much rather rally arpund that than fight last year’s battles 🙂
I just want small-minded Tim Farron to leave the scene along with Cameron, Corbyn & Farage. Alas we now share with the other parties a complete lack of anyone with leadership qualities.
As I have posted before I agree that it is good politics to initially appeal to the 48% and those who have changed their minds and hand in glove with that position take on, full bore the questions on the working class requirements to be heard. Housing,Education public services. These issues are not the preserve of the Labour Party even in a more together mode, we must champion these issues . I heard Corbyn and his accolytes telling of his canute like defence and getting the Tories turn…the truth is different and more could have been done if the Labour Lords had been more positive. But of course, Chris is right the electoral system is broken and we must loudly proclaim that and form an alliance with any party( yes even UKIP) if they still exist, to ensure the public are bought on side.
We have a big job to do and just talking about it, doesnt get it done
@Conor McGovern
We were until recently polling at the 8-12% mark. Taking a stance that appeals strongly to the 48% is progress. If we don’t campaign on this, what do we campaign on? Voting reform?
We are just about starting to be listened to again by more than 8-12% of the voting population. Voting reform is important, but not enough people care about it at the moment to tune and listen.
Regarding the 52%, we present some positive arguments and hope we can change some minds. Other parties can campaign on a platform of “respecting the referendum result” with a strategy of saying no to freedom of movement now and then seeing what the best deal is that the rest of the EU is willing to accept from that starting point. We can campaign with the aim of staying in the EU, and if at some point that proves impossible, we can campaign for staying as close to the EU as possible.
We cannot and do not want to appeal to 100% of voters, or the population.
That results in populist nonsense where we believe everyone is above average, and we can make Britain great again by taking back control for hard-working British people etc.
The Liberal Democrats must not pander to illiberal people on any part of the political compass.
Some people are racist. Some people are xenophobic. Some people are isolationist. Some people are authoritarian. Some people are wilfully ignorant. All decidedly so.
They are not Liberal Democrats.
We may believe that some people are wrong or mistaken, and some people don’t have a clue or don’t care – we can try to persuade these people to join us. Persuade them that, as we believe, multicultural, internationalist liberalism is not only right – but right for them.
These are the “Bregretters” or the “Breft-Behind” & the “Brisenfranchised”.
If we can convince this group, plus those who share our values – including minorities who do not see us as their natural allies – that Liberal Democracy is for them, and that we are a party that can deliver it responsibly… then we’re doing it right.
But we do it right by persuading people – not pandering to them or their darkest fears.
“The principle of Liberalism is trust in the people, qualified only by prudence.” (Gladstone)
Gladstone’s principle very clearly applies to Brexit. The referendum represented trust: a trust abused spectacularly by the Leave side in their lies and deceit, now recanted in part but not whole. There are two main reasons for prudence: the closeness of the result, which means that virtually half of the voters are aggrieved, and the apparent consequences, most of which were foretold but dismissed as scaremongering, and some of which are even scarier than what was foretold. Cuts in investment plans, hiring plans and business confidence point to something that could be worse than the Great Depression, at least in this country.
So, to continue as planned is like continuing to buy a house you fell in love with after the survey shows it is about to fall down. You would be mad. Similarly, Parliament would be mad not to apply prudence.
I wish I was hearing this from politicians of other parties, but they are scared to say it. Ironically, we are in an enviable position when it comes to saving the country! Let’s go for it.
I’d first just like to contend that, generally, Lib Dems don’t really want AV; we’d prefer actual proportional representation, for instance through STV. Political reform has always been important to us, and it will continue to be.
We just have a pretty big current event going on right now that happens to align with one of our ideals, and we’re embracing this by appealing to those we feel best represents these Lib Dem principles. The Lib Dems have an internationalist outlook, and it’s in our party’s interests to have a close and beneficial relationship with the European Union, whether we are members of it or not.
Appealing to the anti-Brexit of this country isn’t the same as neglecting those who voted to Leave, though; I think it’s a safe bet to say that many of the 52% are also interested in, at the very least, continuing to trade with the EU, and share our concerns about the open-ended nature of the result, and the seeming lack of any plan forthcoming.
I feel, though, that the 48% are a (very large) minority that absolutely needs representation, and I think it’s important enough for the Lib Dems to take charge here, even if it means we aren’t talking about everything else we want quite as much.
Are we talking about housing and social security reform and serious poverty and finding clear ways to fix these or are we telling people with nothing that the cuts-pushing EU is great and they were wrong, ignoring the 52% and courting the votes of the comfortable for whom the EU is a nice, wishy washy get-together of Europeans that’s good for business and conforms to their middle-class worldview? It’s not good enough, or would we rather play positioning? Are we a radical, liberal, democratic party or have we piously given up on the little people?
‘Remember that 48% currently feel unrepresented!’
It seems to me that this is getting put out on the internet a lot, but I do think that some people would be well advised to be a bit more critical. We will never know how many, ‘reluctant remainers,’ there are/were. But I suspect that there really were not too many people belting out Ode to Joy as the walked to the ballot box. Indeed it is interesting, and perhaps rather telling that a great deal of REMAIN internet comment following the referendum seems to be along the lines of, ‘I’m having a great time with the EU, how dare you vote to stop my party?’
Indeed, some on LDV might do well to remember that there are indications that a relatively significant proportion of LDP voters came down for LEAVE.
I don’t as such have a problem with a pro-EU stance, but I do think it is rather overegging the pudding to call these people unrepresented as if each and every one of those REMAIN votes were some sort of active endorsement of Juncker style more Europe.
At worst it is not totally fanciful to think that the next PM might yet be able to pull together a coalition across the parties for an EEA/Norway style approach. That might well attract reluctant remainers and soft leavers from across the political spectrum and that would probably give a strong Parliamentary majority, at least in England and Wales.
I am reminded of this quote that articulated far better than I ever could what Liberalism means…
Alan Paton’s definition: “by Liberalism I do not mean the creed of any party, nor any century. I mean a generosity of spirit, a tolerance of others, a commitment to the rule of law, a high ideal of the worth and dignity of man, a repugnance of authoritarianism, and a love of freedom.”
That should be worth more than 8-12% but I would not want to dilute that definition to appeal to disaffected Labour or Tory rebels who don’t aspire to those points.
Agreed Chris – I think Paul Walter’s piece presented a more realistic policy position for the party: https://www.libdemvoice.org/we-need-a-dual-track-approach-which-embraces-rejoining-efta-while-staying-in-the-eea-51184.html
I am with Conor McGovern here: we must continue to be a radical, liberal and democratic party, talking about housing and social security reform and poverty – well said, Conor. We are in a great position to advance, because of the current lack of government, the failures of the Conservatives and the splits in Labour, which cause ordinary people to think we could be an answer to this chaos. We need to continue to remind people of the gross failures of the Conservative leaders, not allow them to reassert the authority they have squandered, but put forward our positive proposals for economic growth and the protection and advance of the poorest and least powerful. On the latter point, we do need to fight again for PR, because that would make voting in elections worthwhile again for everyone. And we need to demand democratic reform in the EU, and work with left and centrist parties in Europe to promote positive changes there, for the EU is in a mess too.
Being pro-EU is fundamental to who we are.
The Leave voters I have met voted that way for a host of reasons which had little or anything to do with the EU. Much was to do with a sense of being left behind. The preamble to the constitution refers to “freedom from enslavement by poverty, ignorance or conformity” that is a different way to approach exclusion and offers an alternative to the approaches that have failed for people who are excluded.
And we need to move the EU dialogue on from contradicting the idea that the EU is bad to a truthful discussion of the EU as something that is a force for good (and one the UK can be involved in improving).
Writing this from Tarragona, where no-one I’ve yet spoken to thinks Brexit will be good for them or for Europe generally. There’s no great love of how the EU operates here – and I find the same in Germany – but no-one thinks it’s a great idea to pull down the house in order to rearrange the furniture. They want Britain to stay in the club, typically expressed as holding the balance between the ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ ideas of how Europe should be, and off-setting the German-French engine. It’s a pity that these geopolitical questions are not being aired. They are central to the UK’s national and historic interest.
The Lib Dems lost the AV argument but let us take one thing from Nigel Farage – persistence pays off!
Indeed. Yet another mistake made by the LibDem leadership 2010-2015 was to stop talking about AV after the referendum result.
We should have talked about it all the time. Every time people talk about the broken two-party system, made the point that if only they’d voted for AV we’d be able to change it, because that would end the line “You have to vote Labervative otherwise you’ll split the vote and let the Conbour in”. When people talk, as we have had a lot recently, about electoral pacts, remind them that if we had AV we wouldn’t need them.
AV wasn’t perfect, and we should have made that clear, it solves some problems of FPTP, but not others, it isn’t proportional and really we would prefer a proportional system. However, it was a compromise, a step in the right direction.
As with the EU referendum, I don’t think the AV referendum was “lost” in the sense that the argument was lost. The real argument was never put. Rather a fake argument was put by people who had money and influence to put it, and the other side lost because at first they were too complacent and at the end panicked.
In both cases, what was missing was actual facts. How actually does AV work? Give some simple examples of it being effective (e.g. enabling an independent challenger to a poor MP to stand without fear of splitting the vote). So with the EU. Did anyone ever explain how EU policies are made? Did anyone ever list what they are? Not that I recall. So we had the fake argument from Brexit that they are imposed with no democratic input, and the fake argument that they were some sort of domineering control rather than mostly technical trading standard issues. If the EU really was what Brexit said it was, it would be easy to list nasty domineering controlling things they were doing to us, but they never did that, did they? Because they couldn’t, it was all just vague hand-waving.
If we want to carry on trading with the EU, we have to keep to their standards anyway (but after Brexit no longer have a say in them). How did being in the EU stop us trading with anyone else as Brexit kept claiming? That was nonsense. So far as I can see, the only big thing that Brexit gives us is the ability to expel EU citizens, which, er, apart from it not being very nice isn’t that practical is it?
@ Chris Robson “After voting for the Conservative party in the last General Election”.
WHY ?
There is no doubt that places like Hartlepool and Merthyr Tydfil voted Leave heavily as a cry of anger. Despicably, some commercial interests and cynical politicians have directed their anger at immigrants and minority ethnic people as the source of their woes and the downtrodden people who voted Leave thought the vote would get rid of these people. This is a different situation from Fenland where immigration really is a source of many problems and also of many benefits. It’s different from Clacton where most Leave and UKIP voters are reasonably well-off, live in decent houses, see very few immigrants because there are very few there (except for those working in the NHS), but still blame immigrants for all sorts of things.
Two points about the Hartlepools and Merthyrs, Sunderlands and Blackburns. We used to offer a non-racist, hope-oriented alternative in many such places, but have receded. We need to get back into such places and not treat them as low priorities because they’re not strategic seats. And much of the anger is fuelled by our electoral system. Everyone knows which party will win the Sunderland seats. Most wards in such places are in no way marginal. So our present system pushes the parties to ignore them for the few marginal wards and constituencies.
Plenty of areas with virtually no deprivation voted leave, it was not all a cry from the disposed but a hands off my stash by people doing very well.
Tim Farron’s support for a return to the EU is a completely laudable and honourable position, and I did seriously consider joining the Lib Dems precisely because of it but… well after reading your post Chris Robson I can see the folly in doing so. If grassroots members like yourself dont care about leaving the EU and think that campaigning to return to the EU at some future point is undemocratic then clearly the Lib Dems are still as irrelevant a political force as they have been since Charles Kennedy ceased being their leader
Alex,
This article represents the views of a minority of Lib Dems. Most of us are very committed to the idea of staying in the EU or rejoining if we leave and will campaign on that basis.
Caron Lindsay 3rd Aug ’16 – 8:23am……… Most of us are very committed to the idea of staying in the EU or rejoining if we leave and will campaign on that basis…..
Agreed!…Just as, when we were in, the ills of the UK were blamed on the EU so, when we are really out, the ills will start to be blamed on our exit…..T’was ever thus….
At the moment, being pro re-join is seen as a whinging refusal to accept the majority opinion.. but, “There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”…Our time/tide will come…
@ expats “Our time/tide will come…”!
Only if we decide what sort of party we are. Being the marshmallow soft centre of British politics is no recipe for the future. We are either a radical party committed to social justice and reform or we are nothing.
or rejoining if we leave
Even if that means adopting the Euro, losing our opt-outs on things like the social chapter, losing our rebate, etc etc?
David Raw 3rd Aug ’16 – 9:30am……………@ expats “Our time/tide will come…”!…
Only if we decide what sort of party we are. Being the marshmallow soft centre of British politics is no recipe for the future. We are either a radical party committed to social justice and reform or we are nothing…………….
Again, I agree….We need to go back to our pre-2010 model…Remember…
“Liberal Democrats are different. When it’s come to the big decisions – on the
banks, on the environment, on the war in Iraq – we are the only party that has
called it right, every time.
Only Liberal Democrats have the big ideas for fundamental, structural
changes in the way our country works to make it fair. Only Liberal Democrats
will shake up the tax system to put £700 back in the pockets of tens of
millions of low and middle-income families, paid for by ensuring the wealthy
pay their fair share. Only Liberal Democrats will break up the banks and start
Britain building things again, creating a sustainable economy that no longer
threatens our planet’s future. Only Liberal Democrats will invest in our schools
to give every child, no matter their background, a fair start in life. And only
Liberal Democrats will sort out our rotten political system once and for all……
Those promises/aspirations seem so, so far away….
“Expat” – I LIKE !!
Nick Cotter
I’m not the political hardcore. I joined after Brexit to somehow stay united with Europe. That’s a platform which will sustain my vote. Endless attempts to reform the voting system will not.