In today’s political landscape, many feel disillusioned. Labour seems unable to fulfill its promises, while the Conservative Party’s long tenure has left a bitter taste. This climate presents a unique opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to step forward and appeal to those who feel politically homeless.
Our approach must prioritize practical, common-sense policies that harness the power of logic over divisive rhetoric. We must address the pressing concerns facing the UK today—ones that impact the everyday lives of the working class. From the increasing cost of living to the scarcity of high-quality jobs, we need to offer solutions that resonate with those who feel left behind by the political establishment. It’s crucial that we don’t simply offer critiques of other parties but provide a grounded, realistic alternative that people can truly believe in.
Addressing the Rise of Far-Right Sentiment
Across Europe and the US, we’ve seen the dangers of far-right movements gaining traction by preying on people’s frustrations. Far-right ideologies often thrive in environments where individuals feel their voices aren’t heard, especially as they contend with economic hardship or lack of opportunities. In the UK, recent protests and social movements indicate a rising frustration and a void in representation for moderate and rational perspectives.
As Liberal Democrats, it’s essential to draw a clear line, rejecting any form of extremism and standing for inclusivity, human rights, and unity. This doesn’t mean we ignore the genuine fears people have about issues like security, immigration, and the changing economy. Instead, we must acknowledge these concerns with empathy and provide clear, rational solutions. For instance, on immigration, we can advocate for policies that secure borders sensibly while championing the positive contributions of immigrants to society and the economy. By addressing people’s concerns with reason and compassion, we can combat the pull of extremism without pandering to its dangerous ideologies.
Stopping the Boats: A Humane Approach to Migration
The issue of dangerous Channel crossings has become a symbol of the broader challenges surrounding migration in the UK. While protecting borders is necessary, we believe the solution must be both humane and effective. Instead of simply aiming to ‘stop the boats,’ our approach focuses on tackling the root causes that drive people to make perilous journeys. By supporting stable development, providing aid to regions in crisis, and working with European allies to establish safe and legal pathways for those in genuine need, we can reduce the pressures that lead to these crossings.
Our commitment is to address illegal migration responsibly, without losing sight of the human lives at stake. By focusing on both domestic and international cooperation, we can work toward a balanced policy that respects both the rule of law and the dignity of individuals seeking safety and opportunity. This balanced approach can serve as a blueprint for future migration policies that ensure security while honoring our obligations to protect vulnerable populations.
Reskilling the Nation for a Future of High-Skill Jobs
The economy of tomorrow demands a highly skilled workforce. One of our key goals should be to drive initiatives that reskill workers for high-skill jobs, particularly in technology and innovation. Over the next decade, automation and artificial intelligence are set to reshape the workforce, eliminating many manual and repetitive tasks while creating new opportunities in fields like data analysis, green energy, and advanced manufacturing.
By promoting access to quality training and education, we can empower individuals to thrive in industries critical to the UK’s future, positioning the nation as a leader in emerging sectors. This focus on high-skill job creation is not only an investment in our people but a crucial step toward a sustainable and competitive economy. By enabling workers to adapt and excel in the evolving job market, we can also alleviate pressures on social welfare systems and ensure greater economic stability.
Steering Clear of Far-Right Dangers
At this juncture, it’s essential that we offer a centrist path that avoids the pitfalls of extremism. Far-right ideologies have taken root in several Western countries, often undermining democratic values and unity. In the UK, we must be vigilant against this trend and understand the factors that drive individuals toward such ideologies: fear, disillusionment, and isolation.
Our party must be a beacon of moderation, embodying a vision that respects diverse voices and encourages healthy debate without falling into divisive rhetoric. We need to foster an environment where dialogue and understanding prevail over reactionary approaches. Instead of ignoring or dismissing concerns, we can address them with clear policies that resonate with the realities of our time.
A Call to Action
The Liberal Democrats have a real opportunity to redefine the political landscape in the UK. By focusing on policies rooted in common sense, addressing the rise of far-right sentiment, committing to reskilling, and advocating for educational and prison reform, we can become the party of choice for those seeking logic, compassion, and progress. This is more than a political endeavor; it’s a commitment to the wellbeing of future generations and the stability of our society.
It’s time to unite those disenchanted by traditional options and forge a path that embodies hope, growth, and inclusivity. For too long, we’ve allowed divisive voices to dictate the national conversation. By stepping up with clarity, empathy, and purpose, we can create a movement that resonates deeply with the aspirations of the British people. Let’s seize this moment.
* Mo Waqas is Chair of the Lib Dem’s Stockton branch and was the PPC for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1297
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Brexit putting England and Wales tap water safety at risk
Regional Candidates Committee - let the verwaltung* commence (but not until the New Year)
Should Labour move to the right on immigration? The Week in Polls
4th Dec
Nonconformistradical
David Garlick
Simon R
Mick Taylor
Diana Simpson
20 Comments
The dispersal of Asylum seekers to hotels & HMO’s in already struggling towns has been significant…It doesn’t bode well … There’s no hiding the crime statistics recently released by countries in the EU..If we don’t confront that reality – then voters will find someone that does.
No, Mo, I don’t want my party to be a ‘beacon of moderation’, standing safely in the middle ground, neither offending nor attracting but content to trundle along as the perpetual third party. After more than fifty years of giving my support, I demand that my party chooses now the path of Social Liberalism not Economic Liberalism and helps drive the government forward to bettering the lives of all its citizens, lifting poverty and challenging the extreme inequality of our society today. I think our wonderful new cohort of MPs have begun well but will I hope plan to do much more.
Katharine is correct. The mushy middle appeal is highly unlikely to lift Middlesborough and Thornaby from 6th place to a Lib Dem gain.
Disillusionment is a key factor in turning people towards the extreme right. Last night on Question Time one person in the audience made an impassioned speech against both Labour and Conservatives in a tone which implied the majority of politicians and received a huge applause from the audience. Let’s remember that Farage is such an attractive speaker to so many people it makes them feel warm towards his party no matter what the content of his manifesto.
I also notice in our local area in reaction to the Fuel Allowance announcement for pensioners, people who voted Labour saying things against Labour and all politicians. This is an area where Reform came second in spite of doing no campaigning. I worry.
The ideas of ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ are relative terms based on the stance of the observer. Is opposing illegal immigration ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’? Is believing in redistribution of income and wealth to reduce relative poverty ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’? Is wishing to abolish the House of Lords ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’?
In all case, your judgement will depend on your own political outlook.
Well stated Katharine P.!
Social liberalism is a wise way forward as it puts into energetic combination Roosevelt’s “Freedoms To” and “Freedoms From”, thus both enabling all citizens and their children to develop well and skillfully and be protected from the predatory attentions of the followers of Austerity/Neo-liberalism, the results and purposes of whom are to be seen in the data on poverty, homelessness, and inhumane and grotesque waiting lists etc.
Political “left and right ” categorization was introduced after the French Revolution of 1789 -1799 as a seating plan for surviving politicians and so is of decidedly limited use for the planning of support of and motivation for the all of us today.
Might aiming at/for “the middle ground” result in merely letting others control/guide one’s aims and actions?
Might the L. D. Party state and manage its policies in terms of considered analysis, critical thinking and validated actions?
Might it start by eschewing Neo-liberalism/Austerity and emphasizing the skill development and decent pay for all our young people who face a moribund job market place, poor pay and many of whom are permanently underfed/starving?
@Mary Fulton – even the definition of “Illegal” immigration depends on the stance of the observer.
Lib Dems would generally accept the right of refugees to make asylum claims in the UK.
The Tories made the process of claiming asylum virtually impossible, and redefined “illegal” immigration as anyone arriving without a visa, even though you can only claim asylum once in the UK but can’t apply for a visa for the purpose of claiming asylum – Catch 22.
Good to see both David (Raw) succinctly, and Steve (T) with thoughtful expansiveness agreeing with my earlier comment, thank you both. I think our party is going to have to commit ourselves, and should, sooner rather than later, to seek public support for our Fairer Society radical programme and urge it on the government.
This seems like an all too familiar case of a Libdem getting very excited about the idea of being a centrist without actually understanding what that entails.
For example in order to be centrist or “moderate” on immigration we need to find a way of bashing the immigrants lightly, we’d need to look a bit tough but not too much.
Outright rejecting far right rhetoric is also not moderate. We’d need to at least accept some of the framing in those areas where much views are gaining significant traction.
Bieng liberal is not moderate, we are firmly on the libertarian side of the libertarian authoritarian spectrum and should not shy away from this.
Furthermore if we want to halt the rise of the far right we must recognise on economic matters that big problems require bold solutions, if we don’t provide them then people will seek them from those that do!
The criticism below the line bear no relation to what Mo actually wrote. To take just two examples:
@Katherine Pindar: He didn’t reject “Social Liberalism”, nor endorse “Economic Liberalism”, whatever that’s supposed to be.
@David Le Grice: I can’t see any symptoms of Mo getting “very excited”! What would that look like, in any case.
Moderation in rhetoric, compassion for the vulnerable and evidence-based liberal solutions is what the author is advocating. This is compatible with bold initiatives and reform: nowhere in the article will you find Mo arguing against that.
@ Chris Moore,
“He didn’t reject “Social Liberalism”, nor endorse “Economic Liberalism”, whatever that’s supposed to be.”
I’m surprised you don’t know what ‘Economic Liberalism’ is. It the right of those with money to do what they like with it. The more they have the more “liberalism” they can afford. You might want to take a look at the policies of the German FDP. The party embraces Germany’s ordoliberal tradition and has aligned itself with the promotion of free markets and privatisation, and is aligned to the economic right of the political spectrum.
I often think social liberalism is for those socialists who don’t want to be called socialists. 🙂 Katharine would probably disagree.
From what I can make out most LibDems don’t want their party to be the UK equivalent of the German SPD but a sizeable minority do. That must be a problem.
Sorry that last sentence should be ” …most LibDems don’t want their party to be the UK equivalent of the German FDP…”
The author makes many sensible suggestions, indeed, Chris Moore, but going down the middle road as has often been said leaves you liable to be run over. There is, for instance, no easy conjunction between ‘logic’ and ‘compassion’. The former might claim that the government must govern for the majority, and not concern itself with unfortunate minorities. The latter would notice the plight of poor families in run-down areas and determine to help them too. Our party should stand for social liberalism, wanting to put right social injustices, not economic liberalism which puts the demands of the market first and foremost. I want us to be, indeed not extreme, but progressive. (Peter, I think you and I are not far apart in wanting social liberalism!)
Stopping the Boats – here is Lib Dem line from Spring Conference 2023
A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO THE SMALL BOATS LEGISLATION
Conservative plans to end small boats crossing the Channel would see those fleeing war and persecution detained and deported.
It would cost the taxpayer huge sums of money and, far from cracking down on illegal trafficking gangs, punish those seeking safety in the UK.
Liberal Democrats know that the best way to stop these dangerous crossings is to provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary for those that need it.
Our new policy, passed unanimously at Spring 23 Conference, shows how we can do just that. It calls on the Government to:
• Immediately scrap the Illegal Migration Bill.
• Fix the broken asylum system by taking powers from the Home Office and establishing a new, dedicated unit to make decisions quicker and more fairly.
• Provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary for refugees from all countries, including:
1. An expanded, properly funded resettlement scheme.
2. A new scheme for unaccompanied child refugees.
3. Reuniting unaccompanied children in Europe with family in the UK.
4. Humanitarian visas to allow asylum seekers to travel the UK to proceed with their claims.
The full motion can be seen at this link : https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference/motions/spring-2023/f16
1.@Katherine Pindar: the article doesn’t argue for “economic liberalism”.
2.@Peter Martin: I’m well aware of the policies of the FDP. The article doesn’t argue for the policies of the FPD. See point 1.
Who are you and Katherine arguing with? Everything the author wrote is compatible with the utterly dominant “social liberal” wing of the party.
@ Chris Moore,
The “political middle ground” does imply a position of broad acceptance of the status quo, albeit with the possibility of some minor reforms, rather than a position of radicalism. I try to avoid making any suggestion about what sort of party the Lib Dems should be and if that’s what you want then fine. I’m not arguing with you. I’ll leave that to party members.
I did interpret your “whatever that is supposed to be” as indicating some uncertainty about the meaning of “Economic Liberalism”. Apologies if you already know!
The problem of comparing us with the FDP is that it isn’t an easy task. On economics, I definitely don’t want to be like the FDP, but on social policy they support pretty much the same things we do, they are very Liberal in fact on gay/trans rights, abortion, same sex marriage etc.
It just shows that a country with a proportional electoral system has very different politics from one that uses FPTP.
@Chris Moore
The title makes it clear that the author at least likes the idea of being centrist/moderate/in the middle. It is not unreasonable to casually refer to this desire as “excitement” in the context of an online comment thread, but that’s not even my point.
My point is that the author like many in the party that use these terms doesn’t truly seem to want to be in the middle. To effectively oppose the populist right you can’t be in the centre, at least not culturally (and my point about coming up with bold solutions to material problems is at least difficult when one is in the economic centre even if possible).
I.e I think the author probably does want us to be liberal, perhaps very liberal and it’s not impossible he may even want us to be economically progressive; but neither of these positions are in the center. If more people in the party appreciated this I think it would help a great deal in moving this party forward in whatever precise direction we want to go.
No, Chris Moore, you are mistaken. (And will you please stop misspelling my name!) It is not certain that the social liberal wing of the party is dominant, though I do hope that the majority of our activists are of that persuasion. The fact is that the author here appears to be resolutely in the centre, and not centre-left as I hope our party will define itself. A key way of defining us, I think, is if we want our party to strive to persuade this government to act in its term of office to reduce poverty, and to try to reduce inequality.
While waiting for Labout to wake up and enact legislation for a form of PR, we could pretend that we already have it. We could work collaboratively with other Parties on issues that we agree on more and show the public via the media a more collaborative culture is possible and desirable. Be the change we want to see.