There’s a fear emerging in the so-called realignment of British politics. All the talk is of Reform UK and the Greens being the insurgent parties that are taking over from the traditional main forces of the Conservatives and Labour. If that’s the current media and social media narrative, where do the Lib Dems fit in?
The harsh truth is that, unless we have a message that gives us an identity among those who don’t take a massive interest in politics but do at least vote, we are heading for irrelevance. That’s not true in terms of our electoral performance in places where we have a foothold via MPs and councillors. They are doing a great job and are natural recipients of votes from those who want to keep the Tories down and Reform at bay. But in the national conversation, too many people are saying ‘the Liberal who?’
Three years ago a few dozen party activists met in York, frustrated at the way the party’s ‘seats over votes’ strategy was starving the party of an identity in the minds of voters, and even of party activists. The emerging ginger group, known as the Yorkists, has been fighting for a better definition of what the Lib Dems stand for, if only so that most voters have an idea of what a vote for the Lib Dems means, or can summarise what we’re about in three or four seconds.
Approaching the two-year mark in this parliament, the Yorkists have asked the question: how should the party go into the next general election, expected in 2029? Not exactly ‘What specific policies are essential?’ but ‘What are the criteria for a Lib Dem offering that will motivate people to campaign for us in places where we can win, and will perhaps attract votes in other areas that could deprive Reform or the Conservatives of vital votes that keep their total number of MPs down?’
The result is a paper called ‘The New Deal’. It’s worked on the basis that the party has to be clearly seen to be in a particular square in a two-way realignment of British politics.
In the vertical alignment (similar to the old left/right or progressive/authoritarian division), the Lib Dems must be part of the progressive centre-left bloc, because that is where most of our votes came from that saw us rise from 15 MPs before the 2024 election to 72 after it. It also fits with a revival of British Liberalism. In the horizontal alignment, we have to be on the insurgent side, an ‘anti-system’ party that distinguishes itself from the more-of-the-same ‘system’ offerings from Labour and Conservatives that voters are increasingly turning away from (the paper makes clear that ‘anti-system’ doesn’t mean revolutionary, but an acknowledgement that the current system isn’t working for too many people so significant change is needed).
The Lib Dems are well placed to be the most sensible and grounded of the anti-system parties, but there’s a problem. The more socially Liberal we are, the more any commensurate policy platform would involve measures that would cause some people who voted Lib Dem in 2024 to pay a bit more in taxes. It’s all very well being authentically Liberal, as long as we don’t frighten too many of our horses.
That’s where the idea of a ‘new deal’ comes in. We need to sell the idea that affluence doesn’t help people if society and public services are breaking down. ‘The New Deal’ quotes Keynes and Beveridge as saying you don’t have a prosperous economy if there is too wide a gap between the richest and the poorest. It calls for a new economic model to redress the balance of 45 years of Treasury orthodoxy set when Thatcher and Reagan were at their peak. And it calls for a handful of imaginative policies so voters and supporters can feel inspired to vote and campaign for the Liberal Democrats.
It is not a manifesto – that’s the job of the party’s manifesto group – though it hints at what could be in the 2029 Lib Dem offering. It is also agnostic on the party leadership – it sets out what leadership is needed, not who that leader should be. It has an introduction by William Wallace, and has the tacit support of many people who want to see its ideas discussed, if only so the party tackles the clear danger that current political trends threaten us with irrelevance.
‘The New Deal’ can be downloaded here.
* Chris Bowers is a two-term district councillor and four-time parliamentary candidate. He writes on cross-party cooperation, was the lead author of the New Liberal Manifesto, and is unofficial coordinator of the Yorkists.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
In which D.H. Lawrence visits Snailbeach
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
Chris Bowers
Roland
9 Comments
Why are we on the other side to the Tories. In areas we are probably nearer to them than certainly the damn Greens, they are the ones we should be having a go at, we need to put them firmly back in their box.
All okay looking for a new strategy, image whatever we wish to call it, but who will front it to the public. Seems we are saying in a roundabout way that we need different leadership. Nothing wrong in that.
One thought. What is the greatest short term problem the country has? Not the usual culprits of social and economic policy. surely it is Defence and we are saying nothing about that, I for one do not want my grandchildren being forced to speak Russian!!!!!
Perhapos we should restore National service, at the end of the period I suspect quite a few would stay on and that alone would boost the numbers of military personnel.
Heavens this is radical stuff for this party. Different image though.
“ and will perhaps attract votes in other areas that could deprive Reform or the Conservatives of vital votes that keep their total number of MPs down?’”
So how do we go about attracting the votes of people inclined to vote for Reform? Do we toughen up our rhetoric about those who are crossing the Channel in small boats? Do we take a harder line regarding the use of prison for violent offenders?
I’m not sure that seeking to appeal to Reform-inclined voters should our priority.
I think your left/centre-left ‘anti-system’ bloc still breaks down into activists who are ‘recognise the spirit of the system, just want it to work better and be held up to scrutiny against its original principles’ and ‘want to rip it up and set it down on a new basis, and tell those who hanker for the old system and some aspects of comfort they got from it that they are wrong’. And you will find some Labour activists and voters in both those groups and the wider pro-system group.
As a voter, I do not want to be yoked in tandem with the Greens’ particular vision of a new system, although I am desperately conscious of Labour’s failings in and out of government, and the way the system is creaking, and I am wary of those in the Lib Dems who are full of wonderful ideas about how to change the system but maybe naieve about testing and scrutinising them and engaging with people who might disagree, as a democratic governmental process once elections are won.
I guess I’ll have to vote Labour and give up hoping the Lib Dems will listen to my concern about the Greens’ policy tendencies, or adopt a policy platform that sees the whole country as democratic citizen-stakeholders who have a right to be heard, whoever they vote for, then. (None of which is to say I’m about to throw in my lot with the centre-right.)
Chris says
“he harsh truth is that, unless we have a message that gives us an identity among those who don’t take a massive interest in politics but do at least vote, we are heading for irrelevance.”
I was not in York 3 years ago. I am a refugee from the Labour since the last venetal election – a member over many decades in my old party- as the Lib Dems have the members with ideas. Somehow this must be funnelled up to HQ.
I joined the Social Liberal Forum, and also the Yorkists at my first LD annual conference in Autumn 2024.
I give my full support to the Yorkist ‘The New Deal.’
I believe there are lots of people out there in the electorate who just want a sensible government, with a firm view of how it can make life better in the tradition of Beveridge.
I recommend ‘The New Deal’ as a good read with an inspiring ambition.
Given the fixed term Parliament Act was repealed by Johnson, I would be aiming at 2028. There is little benefit to the sitting government to go for the full five years, particularly if you want to limit the opposition’s access to Whitehall etc.
Also having a complete offering early in 2028, means you have the resources needed to communicate what a LibDem government would be about, prior to the formal pre-GE period…
@kira Colin’s – “ So how do we go about attracting the votes of people inclined to vote for Reform?”
An interesting question, as the answer is probably slightly different to what you may expect. Reform to gain the votes it will need to form a Parliament has to appeal to a wider audience, which means doing what it is currently doing and moving towards the centre – not so much by dropping its more contentious policies but by adding policies/messages that are more appealing to right leaning voters. Hence part of the challenge will be for LibDems to get these more moderate voters to vote for the LibDems instead of either the Conservatives or Reform. We can expect the more extreme Reform voters to assist in reducing the Reform vote, by transferring their allegiance to Reclaim et al. .
Just a quick response to Kira Collins’ comment. An article on LDV is limited to around 750 words, so there’s a lot more in the 20-page ‘New Deal’ paper. And that includes why, in some cases, it is Lib Dems v Reform in voters’ minds. We saw that at the 2024 general election, when Lib Dem canvassers were astonished to hear voters saying “I’ve narrowed it down to you or Reform.” The first reaction is: how can people narrow down their choice to two diametrically opposed parties? The answer lies in the fact that these voters are sick of the two main parties, so want to use their vote to protest. So for them it becomes a choice between those nice people whose councillors fix potholes, or those brash people who say it how it is even if they’re a bit racist. How many of these voters there are is hard to say, but this emphasises why we have to be on the ‘anti-system’ side of the horizontal divide.
Splendid stuff, well done Yorkists! ‘The New Deal’ seems a great idea in itself. Your graphic shows, however, how much work will need to be done to assert ourselves above the other parties of the progressive Centre-Left, especially the Greens in England. As you write on page 13, “The Greens cannot simply be ignored … they are threatening to take over the UK-wide ‘progressive anti-system’ role unless the Lib Dems dig into the Liberal tradition and start producing some eye-catching radical policies.”
Quite so, and one I am proposing is a national effort, as after World War 2, to treat the lack of sufficient social and affordable homes that we (and Labour) are committed to build but aren’t building nearly enough of as a national Emergency. There’s a draft motion which my Cumberland party is backing, as will I trust Social Liberal Forum Council, and it is going for drafting advice to FCC this week.
The New Deal graphic is very helpful but of course not perfect. As to preventing Reform from winning, we need to be an anti-establishment party as Chris Bowers says. It is not about compromising with Reform’s basic divisive authoritarian approach. In a Guardian webinar early this year, the leader of Hope not Hate said research shows at least one third of Reform voters are about dissatisfaction with Labour and Conservatives, not immigration; one third are completely fed up with the way we are governed and want radical change; only the remaining third are focussed strongly on immigration.