The Liberal Democrats are currently a significant force in British politics, attracting millions of votes. We hold a substantial number of parliamentary seats, control local councils across the country and have a loyal base of support. Yet, listening to the news or watching political programmes, you could often be forgiven for thinking there are only two major parties. Is this something we should worry about?
I have voted Liberal and Liberal Democrat for around 60 years, and in all that time I have never had my own candidate win. That is quite a sobering thought. It also makes me wonder how much of the problem is the way our electoral system works, rather than simply how well we communicate. What do others think?
At present, so many people vote tactically. They may support us but decide that they need to vote for someone else to prevent another candidate from winning. When we eventually get PR, will that change? And will it be enough?
This is not simply a question of getting more publicity. It is also about voters understanding what we stand for.
News coverage naturally concentrates on conflict, arguments, scandals and dramatic events. A thoughtful speech about social care or local government may get little attention, while one controversial remark can dominate the headlines. This makes it particularly difficult for a party whose strengths include balance, pragmatism and nuance. Those qualities do not always make a memorable news story. Are we seen as too wishy-washy?
Perhaps we need to ask a simpler question: when somebody says “The Lib Dems are the party that…” what do we want them to say?
We have good practical policies on almost everything: housing, health, social care, education, civil liberties, local government, the environment and electoral reform. But having lots of policies is not the same as having a clear identity. People cannot be expected to remember a long list.
The environment is an interesting example. We have a substantial environmental agenda, supporting action on climate change, renewable energy, nature recovery, clean rivers and seas, better insulation and a more sustainable economy. Yet many people probably associate environmental politics much more strongly with the Green Party.
Could we – should we – do more to make the environmental part of our identity visible? Not by abandoning our other concerns, but by showing how they connect. Housing, transport, farming, energy and water, as well as being economic and social issues, are environmental issues. Poor housing costs people money. Pollution affects health. Climate change affects the economy. Protecting nature and improving our environment can therefore be presented as part of creating a healthier and more prosperous society. Do you agree?
Another possibility is to look at how we tell our stories. Instead of beginning with a policy, could we begin with the problem it solves for ordinary people? Instead of saying what we believe about insulation, for example, could we talk about warmer homes, lower bills and healthier lives? What do you think?
None of this means that our politics should become simplistic. Our problems really are interconnected. Housing cannot be separated from local government, social care from health, or economic growth from education and infrastructure. But we may need to explain those connections more simply, since voters tend to concentrate on their own local problems.
There is also the voting structure. Britain’s FPTP system encourages politics to be presented as a contest between the government and the party most likely to replace it. Journalists naturally follow that story. Third parties can therefore be marginalised even when they have considerable public support.
So perhaps the question is not simply “How do we get more media coverage?” It is “How do we become impossible to ignore?” What ideas do you have?
We don’t need to manufacture outrage or become more confrontational – that is not our style, and does not reflect who we are. We need a distinctive story about what we uniquely bring to British politics. How do we go about that?
This is a discussion paper, not a set of recommendations. But perhaps we should consider whether clearer themes, more consistent language and a stronger connection between our environmental, economic and social policies could help people see the Liberal Democrats in a more positive – and votable way.
We may not have a shortage of policies. We may have a shortage of voters knowing what they are.
* Veronica-Mae Soar is an archery historian, writer of short stories, articles and poems, as well as a nature supporter and environmental campaigner.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Government must do more to help people onto the housing ladder
The foxes who visited London Zoo with deadly intent
9 tips for speaking at a Liberal Democrat conference
Jana
Jason Connor
Tim
George Thomas
38 Comments
The last sentence sums up it for me. We are getting squeezed out in the majority of constituencies and the beneficiaries of the progressive protest vote are the Greens.
“We may not have a shortage of policies”
One policy you could add is that of achieving full employment.
Keynes, who was also known to be a Liberal, demonstrated how this could be achieved in his major work: the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. If we do achieve full employment there’s no reason to have a large welfare bill nor to levy the taxes needed to fund it. That should have a certain appeal to voters.
It’s a win-win for all. The trick is to achieve full employment without simultaneously creating high inflation. This was the reason Keynes fell out of favour in the 70’s even though the inflation, then, was caused more by oil price shocks rather than wage pressures of an overheated economy.
Veronica asks, are the Liberal Democrats invisible ? …………………………. which is a fair question to put to a political party which seems to focus on, and to be run from, a London and Home Counties perspective.
A serious party interested in power and in implementing its policies would accept the truth of that, and those running it would draw up plans for rectifying the situation. That’s certainly what my late and much missed friend and colleague Michael Meadowcroft did when he was the party’s Local Government Officer back in the 1960’s.
“ They may support us but decide that they need to vote for someone else to prevent another candidate from winning.”
Of course, tactical voting works both ways – we benefit from tactical voting in seats where we are firmly established…and seen…as the main challenger. How many of our current seats would we hold it were not for tactical voting allowing us to take Conservative seats?
Our invisibility is entirely by design.
When we’ve stood out in the past we could easily have chosen our current strategy. If Ed Davey and Mike Dixon had been at the helm in the 2000s there’s no chance that we’d have let ourselves gain any votes over opposition to Iraq for example. Even if we had still opposed it we’d have refused to attend marches, campaign on it or say anything meaningful about it outside parliament.
Right now we could very easily draw of attention to ourselves over Palestine (like the greens have done but without the problematic candidates)
We could also campaign to reverse the real terms cuts to the basic rate threshold, funded by raising taxes elsewhere but in such a way that the average person would be better off with the wealthy paying more in one way or another.
We drew loads of attention to ourselves in 2010 proposing to do exactly that, but are terrified of doing so today.
Indeed with Burnham now trying to abolish rough sleeping, it’s worth noting that this is actually our policy! There’s plenty of emotive ways we could have communicated this policy and made it into a reason to vote for us, in addition to using it to communicate our values more broadly, yet we never campaigned on it at all!
@David Raw “a political party which seems to focus on, and to be run from, a London and Home Counties perspective” London has a lower proportion of Lib Dem seats than the country as a whole and I would challenge you to find a policy on which we are campaigning that is better targeted at London voters than those of say Sheffield. A more realistic assessment is that the party is run from the perspective of Tory facing seats.
Well I am going to say it, is it time for a change of leadership with a more charismatic, dynamic style.
I was out leafleting in north Edinburgh a few months ago. A lady stopped me and asked why she might vote Lib Dem. I said, well, we stand for fairness and freedom alongside an open European outlook. “Oh!” , said the lady. “I can certainly see why I should vote for that. Yes, I like that.”
From time to time I google LibDem policies on a given topic to see what they are – and I’m a member. Getting exposure on national platforms is difficult, but it should be possible for the party to communicate with its own membership. Perhaps we could have a weekly newsletter that includes summaries of policies, with reasons, by those responsible for them? It would also help to know something of what LibDem MPs are doing, because most of us have MPs from other parties. Apart from requests for money and leafleting, the party the party too often deserves to be labelled ‘invisible’.
theakes: You are right to ask the question.
It is likely the Lib Dems will become more invisible in September. Left Foot Forward are planning to provide coverage for the Trade Union, Reform, Labour and Green Party conferences, but not the Lib Dem or Conservative conferences. Yet they are claiming to provide the most extensive coverage of this year’s conference season! Our autumn conference should be the opportunity to promote our existence as widely as we can. As a so-called ‘progressive’ organisation, LFF should include us, against the Reform grouping.
Here (including below-the-line comments) are some answers to the “invisibility” question:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/roz-savage-mp-writes-liberalism-is-having-a-moment-but-does-it-have-a-future-80302.html
The Lib Dems are highly visible in roughly a third of Lincoln and perhaps 50% of York (both Labour-held at Westminster). Why is this? Because a small core of activists works very hard, week in and week out, to keep our profile high.
If the Lib Dems are invisible in your area, ask not what your party can do for you, but what you can do for your party!
@Ynys Mon Man
Try telling that to all the hard working candidates and activists in the many target wards where the Greens beat us with a paper candidate!
Our policy platform is full of well meaning waffle. Our Leader (who is a nice guy) is uninspiring and over-earnest. Plus the electorate are bored with us, and him.
We badly need a new Leader. Now. And we need to sharpen our policy projection. If not, we will see our influence wane yet further, and we will lose a bunch of our Tory facing seats that we worked hard to gain.
ED is a good speaker but not powerful enough to speak with the clarity we need or frame the stories in a way that cuts through. There are open goals right now on gaza, water, wealth imbalance, the environment and so on. Need to frame ourselves as the peoples party who puts the individual first ! And we dont compromise on our values. Id love ED to step up and show more passion.
Stephen Yolland and Carl Pierce are right if our largest numbers of MPs and Councillors are not getting our message across then is is about leadership and if the sound bite strategy with no substance being promoted by Ed Davey has not been the right strategy for some time, A increasing number of us loyal liberal democrats have been calling for a refreshed Liberal Democrat party ,sadly Ed is not producing this . He should use this Autumn conference as an oppertunity to bow out gracefully and commence the process for the competition and hustings for a new leader . no coronation like labour and tories but a oppertunity for refreshed ideas and policies by the candidates to be heard.
In 2024 when most voters would rather have voted for anyone but the disgraced and discredited Tories, Ed went down well. Two years on, a lot more is needed than decency and authenticity. Historically our party’s profile has always depended on the leader – is there amongst the 72 a Grimond, Thorpe, Steel, Ashdown, Kennedy…..
My post sort of started this flurry of “change the leader” postings.
So here goes again just a personal view but Daisy Cooper fits the bill as much as any one, already known, charisma, clear presentation etc etc.
At our Autumn conference once again a series of highly detailed policies covering pages of agenda will be earnestly debated and (mainly) passed. They will then disappear into the annals somewhere or other and never be seen again. Meanwhile we will be accused of having no policies.
When are we going to concentrate on a series of brief succinct promises to the electorate directed at those issues which concern people most and can be put across at the doorstep?
@ theakes. No.
When political parties successfully resolve a problem by changing leader, they do it by identifying a person who stands for that change and promises to implement it. That’s how, Blair, Cameron, and Burnham all gained party leadership. One can argue as to whether the changes these people made were good or bad, but, all of them did broadly make some of the changes they had promised to make.
I don’t currently see any leading personality within the Lib Dems who stands for the radical change that is being called for – With the possible exception of Layla Moran.
@ David Allen, No, David.
Veronica asks, “Is the Lib Dem Party invisible ?”
I have yet to hear, from Ed Davey or any other Lib Dem MP, a challenge as to why Fujitsu has not yet contributed towards the £1.5bn compensation bill for the victims after the Post Office Inquiry. Instead taxpayers have footed all of the bill so far.
LibDems aren’t invisible. If you were, you wouldn’t have 72MPs and thousands of councillors. You don’t have more because yourselves and the Labour Party aren’t sufficiently different in the eyes of most centre and centre left voters to steadfastly vote for one or the other regardless. They’ll vote for the candidate who’s more likely to defeat the right wing Tory or Reform alternative.
The shift in the Labour party’s position over the last 50 years has been quite remarkable. They’ve gone from being a socialist eurosceptic party to being a pro EU mildly social democratic party. My own MP is fairly typical of the current intake. She’s more that happy to proclaim her humanist credentials but she’s loathe to describe herself as socialist. I did manage to squeeze the word out of her on one occasion but I suspect she had her fingers crossed behind her back at the time. 🙂 She’s a good community MP and would be right at home in the Lib Dems.
I’m not sure what you can do about it. Increasing your support base in the more disadvantaged areas of the country will require eating into the Labour vote and let the right in by default. So going after disaffected Tories, as LibDems have successfully done in the South, has to be your best option.
The deafening silence about who might be a good new LD leader tells its own story. A leadership change is a big opportunity for a party to reposition itself and tap into new sources of strength – as Blair, Cameron and now Burnham have now shown. But to make good use of that opportunity, a party needs a new leadership contender with a fresh, strong agenda which has been developed long before any leadership contest.
Clearly the LDs don’t have anybody in that position. So the best advice has to be – Don’t squander the potential future opportunity. Until somebody emerges with a genuinely new and attractive platform, stick with Ed.
@ David Allen In the words of the late Liberal MP for Salford, Hilaire Belloc,
“Hanging on to Nurse, for fear of something worse”.
@ David Allen, ” Until somebody emerges with a genuinely new and attractive platform, stick with Ed.”
According to the headline in yesterday’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ (28 August) : “Ed Davey refuses to rule out Tory pact”.
If this is true, Mr Allen, then I’m afraid the party won’t just be ‘invisible’…… it will be in freefall to oblivion.
Those of us who have been party members for many years well remember what happened to the party between 2010-15.
The simple answer, loud and clear, to Sir Edward is…………., No, No, No !!
David Allen the deafening silence . its a bit chicken and egg no ones likely to come forward until a leadership contest is announced and they can demonstrate support within the Westminster MPs . Ed Davey was the right leader at the last general election but many of us believe he is not the right choice for 2029 . this does not decry his successes but does indicate the need for a refreshed leadership and a refreshed party going forward to next general election .We want to see our 72 MPs and Unitary Councillors build on our success with a fresh mandate and leader .
Perhaps the reason that none of our MPs is positioning for a leadership chalenge is that most only became MPs two years ago and don’t consider themselves ready yet. They may be right.
@Peter Davies
The 2007 leadership election was contested by two MPs first elected only 2 years and 7 months earlier. Chris Huhne contest the leadership having been an MP less than a year.
This may of course be something that strengthens your point….
@ Neil Sandison, @ Peter Davies,
A leadership challenger C who offers a substantial change in policy or strategy should not begin by declaiming “Make me your new leader!” C should instead start out with “Here’s a new way forward which I would propose.” Then, if people like the proposals, C and/or their friends can start whispering “You know, C could actually be the best person to lead with this new way forward.”
That’s what Burnham did. He talked a lot about the virtues of “Manchesterism” before making it clear that he wanted to be the leader who would implement Manchesterism nationally.
A new-ish MP may not be ready for an actual leadership challenge, but should be ready for a “look at my good ideas” campaign. Roz Savage, for one, is doing that….
@David Allen: Indeed. writing good articles for LDV is an ideal way to start.
@ Hywell I went to the Edinburgh Leadership hustings between Clegg and Huhne back in 2007 – and came away convinced by neither ……………… Unfortunately, events proved me correct in both cases………….. which proves nothing other than it all depends upon the quality of the candidates available.
David Allen Agree “the Voice “would be a good platform for potential leadership candidates to build a dialogue with the membership whilst MPs are an important part of our leader selection process we should not forget we are proudly a one member one vote party and should not be afraid to sing that from the rooftops in any election process .
Our political strategy as I understand it does not make it easy for us to have a single message that gives us the publicity we need. We can talk about empowerment, freedom, internationalism or the environment and no-one remembers. We can talk about the effects of policy on the disadvantaged or equality to no avail. Perhaps we could have a monthly theme that we promote during that time. If people remember those that they agree with this could help promote our image.
“According to the headline in yesterday’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ (28 August) : “Ed Davey refuses to rule out Tory pact”.”
More deafening silence! Well, ex Lib Dem provides public service here: a more balanced account can be found (39-40 minutes in) at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0030ndy
It seems that Davey talked about a pact to keep Farage out of power, and he didn’t specifically mention either the Tories or Labour. However, he did say that he “agreed with Kemi Badenoch” that a hung parliament was quite likely. He didn’t need to mention Badenoch. He could just have said that a hung parliament was likely.
The BBC commented that ruling out a Tory pact would have been a gift to the Tories, who would have sloganised “Vote Lib Dem – Get Labour!”
And there’s the rub. It’s easy to argue that the best way to hang on to everybody’s votes is to sit determinedly on the fence.
Until, that is, the voters desert en masse, in search for a party that believes in something.
I would opt for Christine Jardine. Sidelined by the party upper echelons. She is very likeable, speaks well and is witty. Someone people can relate to. I sometimes hear her speaking on Times Radio but she needs a much higher media profile