We often say we care about lived experience, and that is true. We talk clearly about housing, childcare and benefits. In some areas, we have led the way with strong examples and practical policies. Liberal Democrat councils are building new council homes. We pushed to end the two-child benefit cap. In government, we raised the personal tax allowance, the last significant rise before it was frozen.
But when it comes to the economy, our message still stops short of what many people want to hear. And this hurts us when campaigning, especially against the Greens and Reform who are prepared to shout out that the system is broken.
The problem is not that voters lack detail. It is that mainstream politics often lacks honesty, and sometimes it lacks listening.
Politicians talk about growth, markets, interest rates and public finances. These things matter. But, too often, we talk about them as if they exist in a separate world from everyday life. For many people, especially those on low and modest incomes, the economy is not a forecast or a chart. It is whether they have enough money to make choices. That’s why I have previously called for the OBR to publish an analysis of the impact of the Budget on poor people.
We need radical honesty. And that starts by putting on the big ears.
That means listening properly to what people are telling us, even when it makes us uncomfortable. Especially when it makes us uncomfortable.
On the doorstep, many people now lean towards Reform. Too often, the political response is to assume bad motives. To hear racism where there may instead be frustration, insecurity or anger at a system that feels stacked against them. That instinct is not just unfair. It is politically lazy.
When someone repeats a Reform talking point, the right response is not to shut the conversation down, but to open it up. What is driving that feeling? Is it about money? Is it about control? Is it about a sense that hard work no longer pays?
Instead of only offering answers, we should be asking better questions.
Are we asking people whether the benefits system helps them move forward, or whether it keeps them stuck? Are we asking whether conditions, delays and fear of sanctions make it harder to take risks, change jobs or retrain?
Are we asking people in social housing whether their home gives them security but limits their freedom to move for work or opportunity? Are we prepared to hear that council housing can be both a lifeline and a constraint, depending on income and choice?
Are we asking workers whether their pay gives them real freedom, or whether they are one bill away from trouble even when they are in work? Do they feel the economy rewards effort or simply manages hardship?
These are not hostile questions. They are honest ones.
Wealthy people understand something instinctively that politics rarely says out loud. Money gives you choice. It lets you leave a bad job, move area, retrain, plan ahead or take a risk. Benefits may keep you afloat, but money is what gives you control over your life.
If we are honest, an economy that relies on benefits to make life workable for millions of people is already failing. That does not mean benefits are wrong. It means they are a sign that something deeper is broken.
Fairness, in this sense, is not just about safety nets. It is about how economic resources are distributed long before people reach crisis. When wealth and opportunity concentrate at the top, everyone else loses room to move. Poorer households lose freedom. Communities become fragile. Trust drains away.
We rarely say this plainly, even though voters feel it every day.
This is why radical honesty matters.
The mainstream political parties, including our own, are wary of being radical. That caution is understandable. But many voters are not asking for extreme policies. They are asking to be heard. They are asking for honesty that matches the scale of their frustration.
When politics avoids naming unfairness, or refuses to listen carefully to those who are angry, others will step in. Not always with the right answers, but with the confidence to say that something is broken.
Liberal Democrats do not need to promise miracles. But we do need to listen harder, ask braver questions, and speak more plainly about what people tell us in return.
Is the economy giving people freedom, or just keeping them going? Are our systems helping people move forward, or managing their limits? Are people turning to radical voices because they are extreme, or because no one else seems to be listening?
If we are serious about lived experience, that is where radical honesty should begin.
* Tom Reeve is a Liberal Democrat councillor in Kingston upon Thames
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
23 Comments
This aligns, sadly, with what I am hearing on the doors here in the Western Isles.
You make important points. I still work as a classroom assistant in secondary school and my lived experience of talking to young people about their plans after school is that a growing number regards ‘living on benefits’ as a valid choice for their futures. Some actually say that there is no point working because you can get the same ‘from the government’ without having to work. More worryingly, a number of girls have actually said that they plan to get pregnant rather than look for a job because that way they will get a council house as well as benefits to live on.
Who can criticise those who think like this? Some are making perfectly rational choices once aware of the facts. But it does illustrate that our systems needs fundamental change if the benefits system, for some, has somehow moved from being a safety net to a lifestyle choice.
So one of the ‘braver questions’ we need to ask is ‘how do we ensure that the benefits system returns to being a safety net for those genuinely unable to work? The ‘brave’ bit is accepting that this is a valid question that requires an answer…
” how do we ensure that the benefits system returns to being a safety net {rather than a lifestyle choice} for those genuinely unable to work? ”
The obvious answer would be to move towards a system of guaranteed jobs and away from current Lib Dem favourites of a guaranteed basic income or a universal basic income.
The guaranteed wage would have to be a living wage and would also become a minimum wage that all other potential employers would have to at least match. It wouldn’t be as expensive as it might first appear. Society would be getting something in return for the money being paid out. The payment of benefits to those in work would be greatly reduced if the guaranteed wage was in fact a genuine living wage.
The benefits system would remain for those who were genuinely unable to work. Although many people who are currently excluded from the jobs market could well be usefully employed if we looked at the issues in a more enlightened way.
“Research from the charity Mencap suggests 65% of people with learning disabilities – including, though not limited to, Down’s syndrome – want to work, but fewer than 20% of those of working age are currently in employment.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-32613957
I live in a small town that is in a swing constituency. There are a couple of large facebook groups for residents of the town.
One thing I do notice is a lot of people that would describe themselves as “Liberals/Progressives” going onto Facebook groups and making fun/sneering at anybody who votes Reform or is even considering voting for Reform. Often implying that anybody considering voting Reform is thick/racist.
Rarely do I ever see any abuse going to other way. Whilst these self described “Liberals/Progressives” may think they are being clever and I’m sure it looks clever to their friends. All it does is make them look like intolerant bullies who can’t stand anybody who doesn’t think in a way that they don’t approve of. This alienates any swing voters and if anything pushes them more towards Reform.
The is something that is common from people on these so called Liberals/Progressives. Interestingly I rarely see any online abuse going to the other way.
Given this who do you think seems more tolerant and reasonable to the swing voter?
Emblematically, the current government is supposed to be the defining government of my lifetime. Every Cabinet minister educated thru the comprehensive school system – ‘school dinners and tuck shops’ writ large. No other government is supposed to have the moral legitimacy on the electorate ‘lived experience’ than this one. Yet, there are those of us who barely hover above the poverty line throughout our lives, continuing to navigate a benefits system which stifles ambition opting for jobs that you can do now, rather than jobs you can do tomorrow. Ultimately, earned income thru either skilled or unskilled labour is time limited. I am fortunate. I still have capacity and inclination. I fear for those who dont.
@ Slamdac Could you please clarify whether or not you are a supporter of Reform.
I agree with those who say “it’s jobs”. Jobs you can raise a family on.
You can easily find articles by GPs and similar who assert that worklessness leads to demand for a diagnosis and benefits. You can even find Rees-Mogg the elder arguing for Universal Basic Income.
Our current government seems to think the “golden ticket” investment they want is in foreign owned data-centres, which will boost automation and eliminate many entry level jobs. (Of the sort my son would like.) I would not be tempted to tactically vote Labour.
I’ve voted Liberal Democrat in the past. I tend to be a Liberal Democrat/Conservative swing voter.
I prefer the Liberal Democrats for economics and Conservatives for Social issues.
Sorry, Slamdac, that’s not answering the question, which is, do you support Reform ??
I’ve never voted for them.
My ideal party would be Liberal Democrat on financial issues and Conservative on Social Issues.
If Reform offered that then I could vote for them. Depends what is offered at election time. I’m certainly not interested in what he alleged to have said at school when he was a child. If that is the best his detractors can come up with then it says a lot really.
I’d never ever vote Labour or Green. To date I’ve only ever voted either Liberal Democrat or Conservative depending on what is on offer at the time.
I also comment on Conservative Home Website.
@David Raw,
I’ve made a similar argument to Slamdac in the past and I hope you don’t think I’d ever support Reform!
It’s counterproductive for those in the liberal middle classes, who often have had the benefit of a better education by courtesy of a more affluent socio-economic origin, to sneer at the working classes -implying they are ‘thick’. It’s something I first noticed in the Brexit debate.
We have to fight the far right but at the same time we don’t want to alienate everyone who might be inclined to support them. A tricky balance, maybe, but we have to remember what we want to achieve.
@Slamdac: I think the issue with Nigel Farage and the stuff he said as a teenager is more that, instead of accepting responsibility for what he did back then and simply apologising for any hurt he caused, he’s (very implausibly) denied all of it, changed his story multiple times as more evidence emerged, and (also implausibly) started questioning the character and motivation of the many, many, people who have claimed to have experienced racist/derogatory behaviour at the teenage Nigel Farage’s hands. That reaction strongly suggests a man who has no sense of responsibility for his actions, and is willing to do anything, including twisting the truth and smearing others, in order to defend himself. And that in turn suggests someone unfit to hold any kind of political office.
I’m sure we’ve all done immature/unkind things when we were growing up, and many of us will also have held views as a teenager that we no longer hold. As you say, that’s not an issue. But the way the adult Nigel Farage has reacted in recent weeks to the revelations is a huge issue that appears to speak volumes about his character.
Senzala was the word Spanish slave owners used for the South American system whereby slaves were allowed to keep enough of the food they produced to keep them alive, but not enough to give them freedom of choice. The benefits principle is the same, with “state” substituted for “slave owners”. Since the two words have the same number of syllables, and “senzala” is more informative, would you consider switching?
@Peter Martin And HOW do we guarantee jobs?
@Tom Reeve. Great articles, but you too seem to shy away from putting forward the ‘honest, radical solutions’. Yes, we need to listen but that is only a start. The real problem is not facing up to the fact that our taxation system, and political party donation and corporate governance rules mean that the wealthy build up their assets at the expense of the poor, creating ever-increasing unfairness. Sir Ed seems as scared as Sir Keir of upsetting the rich and powerful. Since you live in Kingston-on-Thames, perhaps you should speak to your MP!
Seems a bit odd for Tom to call for the OBR to publish something (a decile analysis) that the Treasury already publishes. If you are interested, you can find it here – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69269c6222424e25e6bc31bb/Impact_on_households.pdf It was a giveaway budget, and most people were better off. The only exception is the richest 10%, who were made worse off. The bottom 10% did really well.
The UK is a declining nation, hurt by losing an empire, hurt by abandoning the EU, hurt by climate change, menaced by Russia and the Trump US. Hence, no party can easily win popularity.
Labour grapple with these harsh realities and set themselves ambitious goals they can’t meet. Reform (and Badenoch) and the Greens are “prepared to shout out that the system is broken”. But the Greens talk about problems rather than answers, while Reform’s message is that if only we threw out all our minorities, all our problems would magically disappear.
Here’s a suggestion. “Decent government”.
Decent government doesn’t let the Post Office avoid compensating victims by endlessly playing for time. Decent government doesn’t promise to end gross maladministration of carer’s benefits and then quietly keep the money. Decent government wouldn’t let Nazanin rot in an Iranian jail rather than pay their debts.
Easy to promise change. Hard to implement it. Clearly the Civil Service say – Yes Minister, we’ll do your dirty work, you hide behind us.
How could that be changed? Create a Public Audit Authority – Governed by a randomly elected funded public “council”, who would employ a team of professional investigators and auditors to chase down, publicise and put pressure to root out Government maladministration wherever they found it. Independent of the Civil Service and Government. So the promise of better government wouldn’t be empty.
@ David Allen “The UK is a declining nation, hurt by losing an empire”….
No it isn’t, Mr Allen. That’s a re-tread of Dean Acheson’s well known 1962 comment. Are you suggesting we should have hung on to colonies and denied their peoples’ right to self-government ?
Did you know, David, that a postmaster-backed group is creating, under another name, what you call a Public Audit Authority? It has the properties you mention, even down to your “professional investigators and auditors”. Feel free to email SLAMsupport.org
“Create a Public Audit Authority – Governed by a randomly elected funded public “council”, who would employ a team of professional investigators and auditors to chase down, publicise and put pressure to root out Government maladministration wherever they found it. Independent of the Civil Service and Government”
Isn’t this the job of MPs and councillors, and especially opposition MPs and councillors. They have the advantage of being perhaps directly connected with the public by virtue of their democratic mandate and may be better placed to know what the public actually cares about.
There also the press/media which is subject to the financial discipline of having to sell what interests the public
@ BrigidGarner,
You ask “And HOW do we guarantee jobs?”
There’s plenty of work that needs doing. Just ask your local councillor who’ll probably tell you that they’d like to do but there is no money to pay for it. So the idea is that government can offer a job to anyone who wants one. Pavlina Tcherneva is perhaps the best known economist for advocating such a program. There quite a lot more from her on the net and on youtube.
PT makes it all sound marvellous of course and it all makes perfect sense economically. Both the left and right will have their reservations which is why we haven’t heard more about it. I doubt it would work out quite like she describes but it’s nevertheless worth taking a look at with a view to moving cautiously in this direction.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Job-Guarantee-Pavlina-Tcherneva/dp/1509542108
Tristan Ward: Yes, opposition MPs and councillors can and should seek to hold Government to account for maladministration. But they lack the power to demand compensation. They also have a political axe to grind, and so governments often get away with ignoring what their opponents call for. A Public Audit Authority could be given stronger powers, and would gain credibility because of their independence from the political process.
Peter Hall: SLAM looks interesting, but it’s a private single-issue initiative. PAA would be a public authority hence potentially more powerful.
Honesty is the new front line in politics, one that it seems all political parties struggle with. Without knowing accurately where we are, it is impossible to navigate our way forward.