I came of “political age” in 1997: a politics-mad 17 year old, I won my sixth form’s mock election (for the Lib Dems obviously) and marvelled at the idea I was now living under a Government which wasn’t Conservative. That year, Labour swept to power on a wave of optimism. But very quickly, politics became about message discipline, media management, and “lines to take.” Ministers stuck rigidly to scripts, ducked difficult questions, and avoided risk at all costs. At first it looked professional; soon it looked fake. That culture of spin eroded public trust and, I believe, has left politics diminished.
Politics is so often thought of as a battle of ideas – manifestos, policies, the detail of legislation. But we know most people don’t follow politics in that way. Voters don’t usually sit down with policy papers; they judge us on how we make them feel, whether what we say rings true, and whether we sound like people they can actually trust. More than ever, politics is less about the issues themselves and more about how we communicate.
That’s why figures like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, however vile their ideas, have managed to cut through. They project a bluntness that their supporters interpret as honesty. It seems authentic – unscripted, unpolished, and real. People believe they are hearing what these politicians actually think, rather than a line from an adviser’s grid.
We’ve also seen a very different kind of authenticity in Ed Davey’s leadership. His willingness to speak openly about his life as a carer – the challenges and sacrifices of looking after his disabled son – has struck a chord. It hasn’t been about clever soundbites but about showing humanity. That kind of authenticity builds a connection with voters that I see played out whenever I meet constituents – “Ah yes, Ed Davey, I like what he says about care” is usually the kind of positive comment that’s made about him.
For us as Liberal Democrats, the lesson is clear. We must avoid the retreat into managed lines and fear of mistakes. Our strength lies in authenticity – being prepared to speak in our own voices, to be open about our convictions, and to acknowledge complexity when that’s the honest thing to do. It won’t always be neat. Sometimes it will mean headlines we’d rather not have, or admitting we don’t yet have the perfect answer. But I increasingly believe those risks are worth taking, particularly as we see what we thought we knew about party politics in modern Britain being turned on its head. And where we sit as the only mainstream party prepared to take on Reform, as opposed to lurching further towards them.
This is where we, as Lib Dem campaigners, can stand apart. Not as the slickest operators or the most carefully managed, but as the party that dares to be real. If we embrace authenticity – even when it carries risk – we can build the trust that politics so badly needs, and show people that there is another way of doing politics altogether.
* Anna Sabine was elected as Liberal Democrat MP for Frome and East Somerset in July 2024.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
7 Comments
Utterly refreshing! Yes, what counts in the end is not just what we say but also how we say it. Likewise not just what we do but also how we do it.
“Voters don’t usually sit down with policy papers; they judge us on how we make them feel, whether what we say rings true, and whether we sound like people they can actually trust.” True, but they also want to hear something very simple about certain policies, currently about immigration but at general election time normally about the economy. I agree entirely about authenticity but when you say “speak in our own voices” we hopefully should and can avoid excessive differences among us on too many issues as that confuses them. Hence all of what you say applies usually after we have worked out ourselves what it is we are about and what our policy priorities are.
It also takes time to build their trust in us, so that we get to the point where they will listen to us and take us seriously.
I agree with the thrust of this, but may I also reference the article by Lord William Wallace on August 26th – and my comment then.
I love this! It translates down to the local/micro level too. So many people would be such an asset to politics if they didn’t feel contsrained by specific forms of language that are inauthentic for them. There are multiple ways of articulating our values and our policies, and we should as far as possible allow our members to do it ways that work for them.
I can only support this so far. When policy is being discussed fine but not during election campaigning. People do not vote for party’s that appear divided. I well remember the Liberal party speaking as you say with their own voice at the 1986 conference defence debate and then wrecking our 1987 general election campaign. I had hoped to have put all that behind us.
@Graham Jeffs, I have looked at your previous comment and agree your distinction between policies and philosophy, the latter being neglected in our communications. Maybe statements like ‘people come before systems’ are needed. I also agree that ‘Reform’ is a party title that has great marketing value and unfortunately hides the rather destructive ideas that particular party has.
So true, we need a policy framework where members can speak candidly without risking causing offence or worse by opposing party policy. We should make clear when we are speaking as Party representatives and when as individuals who happen to be party members. Perhaps a constitutional amendment could provide clarity on this important issue. The electorate don’t want robots who can repeat party policy.