Find out how Chris Rennard completed this sentence in an interview over on PoliticalBetting with himself and Ed Davey.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
What’s going on with party strategy? (Caron Lindsay)
-
We do have a two-tier system (Neil Hickman)
-
Observations of an Expat: NATO Irony (Tom Arms)
-
What really happened? (Simon Banks)
-
Why community politics matters (Mark Corner)
-
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
-
From Norman settlement to a civic square
-
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
-
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
-
Church Green video
-
Doing my bit at Whickham Church Green
-
Have a goat day tomorrow!
-
Pride inside instead
-
Replacing a one party state with another
-
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Recent Comments
Simon Robinson
Lucy Connolly was jailed because she directly called for people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers. Nigel Farage said he felt a sense of cold rage. ...
Tom Arms
Thank you Mohammed...
Andrew Ducker
The idea that we put too many people in prisons is in no way equivalent to encouraging people to riot....
David Evans
David & Mick, I remember (just) a Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 which arose because Idi Amin, the Ugandan military dictator, chose to expel all the India...
paul barker
This is the 6th contest since May 7th & the first Reform gain, way too soon to draw any conclusions. This ward is the Posh end of Barrow & a typical Co...
32 Comments
So our unique appeal will be…. meaningless bunk about stresses and families which could come from either of the other two parties. Unique, interesting, intellectually coherent? I think not. We’re gonna have to do much better than that frankly piss poor attempt and branding.
Scanned through the article – and still looking for the answer to the question !
Control F it and type “unique”. You’ll find it.
Rennard’s answer has irked me so I’ve posted about it. http://schneiderhome.blogspot.com/2008/08/usp-rennard-and-other-managerialist.html
It’s “reducing the stresses on ordinary people / families”. Well, that’s fine IF and when we’re talking about policies that are specific to us and are credible. It’s perfectly credible that we will scrap ID cards, scrap Sats, and generally get a bossy over-centralised government off people’s backs.
What’s not fine is to become the pie-in-the-sky party. Back in 2005, with pension schemes closing all around us, we found a special Lib Dem crock of gold at the end of the rainbow for our pensioners. I well remember Ken Clarke at the Rushcliffe hustings, calmly analysing all the real-life pensions problems we were ignoring, and just making us look like a bunch of amateurs. Are we now going to do the same again with an unfeasible and non-credible tax cut programme, which will merely cause general laughter?
@David Allen,
But you’re just talking about the tax *cuts*, right? Not the actual tax package which redistributes taxes more fairly and allows lower earners to pay a low rate of tax, yes?
I always feel I have to check…
crewegwyn, control F and type unique. It’s there.
rennard has irritated me so much I’ve blogged about his answer.
http://schneiderhome.blogspot.com/2008/08/usp-rennard-and-other-managerialist.html
p.s. why is it swallowing my comments?
James: it’s not particularly exciting or intellectually interesting, but I’m not sure that those virtues have ever won elections. To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, it’s not enough that all right-thinking people should support us; we need a majority! Showing that a) we care and b) will do something about people’s problems is pretty much essential, if dull. Labour in 1997 succeeded by addressing people’s fears (unemployment, NHS waiting times) and even though there was not much interesting to say about it, this strategy worked.
I’m all for intellectually vibrant messages, and when someone proposes one I think that the party should consider it very seriously. Until then, the best we can do is try to explain our policies and principles in terms of ‘what’s in it for Joe Public’.
Rob, no one (the majority) cares or is listening. And frankly, why should they? “We’re on your side” etc is meaningless, so are the other two parties (apparently) and they get all the air time.
“Showing we care”. Why not actually say something different and meaningful, like, err, a coherent policy under an overarching narrative a bit snappier than “stresses”? 1, people would be more likely to notice and 2, parroting the tired old lines about caring and listening just makes us sound like boring, hated, mainstream politicians.
“Will do something”. Rennard said that the election wouldn’t be about issues but a whole package. Code word for managerialsm and knee jerk reactions. We’ve had this already, and it sucks. Come on, what is the point of being a Lib Dem if you could take our policy narrative and say it was either Labour or Tory and not tell the difference.
My fuller two pennyworth is here: http://schneiderhome.blogspot.com/2008/08/usp-rennard-and-other-managerialist.html
“So our unique appeal will be…. meaningless bunk about stresses and families which could come from either of the other two parties.”
I think that’s a bit harsh – Chris was giving quite a generalised answer. In broad terms all political parties want the same – “to make you, your family and your friends, better off, more secure and happier”
At the next election the unique appeal of the Tories will be?
“We’re not Labour”
…..er thats it
So come on then critics – tell us the answer –
Hywel, when asked what we want the next election to be fought over I find it pretty depressing that all we can say, in admittedly broad terms, is “we will be better at achieving identical ends than the other two, honest”. That is the definition of managerialism and if we are going to go down that route then lets just scrap political parties altogether and get Mackinsy in.
We should want to fight the next general election on a distinctive narrative, not the same as the other two. We’ll get less than nowhere.
Cheltenham Robin, the Tories have “we’re not labour” which will be sufficient if all we’ve got is “stresses”. Lets be fair, they’ve got broken britain too.
Rochdale Cowboy, I’m not arguing that I have the exact answer, I wouldn’t pretend to be capable of providing all of our political solutions. But an idea of the direction we should be taking can be found in the post which I’ve linked to further up the comment stream.
Right then Rochdale cowboy, philosophy in a nutshell, here it comes.
Freedom, fairness and the future.
Freedom – The issue that best defines our USP. Lab and Con are in the pockets of powerful vested interests and millionaires. Lib Dems treasure their independence and support ordinary people. So we’re totally different. We’ll get big bossy government off people’s backs. We’ll stop supermarkets dictating food policy, oil companies dictating energy policy, etc. Nobody else will.
Fairness – our opponents are two right-wing parties who have both increased social inequality. We will reverse that. (Pity we declared a 50% top tax rate and then scrapped it again, that wasn’t clever, but we do all agree on a more redistributive tax policy.) It’s also unfair of ConLab to play tough on crime just to win votes, while lumbering the poorest with bad policies that fail to cut crime. It’s unfair of ConLab to pretend to be tough on immigration, while quietly accepting high immigration and then failing to make the social provisions needed to adapt to it.
The future – NeoConLab haven’t learnt anything from Iraq and will make the same mistakes again, trying to impose colonial gunboat diplomacy on the non-western world. It’s immoral and it won’t work. ConLab have also ducked the challenge of global warming and are hiding behind a barrage of words. We will make massive changes in transport and energy etc painless, by taxing pollution and giving the money back to people. If you want your grandchildren to have a future, vote Lib Dem!
David Allen: Freedom, fairness and the future.
Yes, all nice ideas once you’ve explained them in lengthly paragraphs but if Chris Rennard had said “freedom, fairness and the future”, you might have rightly pointed out that every party could claim that (with their own different explanations for what they mean by each of those).
Yesterday, Cameron/Gove’s Tories scored an incredible own goal.
Yes, a suitably prissy Andrew Lansley stood in front of the cameras and commanded the British public to lose weight. Rather in the manner of a primary school headmistress.
We underlings have all been terribly naughty by eating too much and jolly well deserve our bottoms smacked (Nicholas Soames included, I guess).
Now comes the really scary bit. None of us is capable of exercising any kind of free choice in the matter. We are COMPELLED to be fat by that ghastly pseudo-sociological buzz term, “peer group pressure”.
And this from a party with an appalling record of supporting the tobacco industry, and a leader who smokes.
Oh, and before I forget it, two Tory PMs since the war, Winston Churchill and Ted Heath, have been, er, fat.
Why didn’t Nick Clegg knock this one for six?
Both (not so) “New” Labour and Cameron/Gove are busily dreaming up ever more outrageous ways of micro-managing our lives. The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, want to give power and chocies back to people.
How about that for a sloagan?
Sesenco–is that the Lib Dems will give power and choccies, or power and choices, back to people? ‘Cos, y’know, giving people choccies when they’ve got weight issues…
Well that it then
‘Power to the People !!! ‘
and hope nobody remembers Citizen Smith.
At the next election the unique appeal of the Liberal Democrats will be…
– taxing wealth and waste, not work.
If only.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/aug/22/conservatives.davidcameron
“Automatic System/Reflective System
Two systems used for thinking. The automatic involves gut reactions, or learnt behaviour; the reflective involves reasoning. We all use both, in different situations. (Thaler and Sunstein says voting normally involves the automatic system, which is bad news of politicians who try to win using complex arguments.)”
The above should be required reading for anyone in Cowley Street. We are all collectively too bound up in trying to win votes by policy-making.
No-one is listening …
BTW, why has Nick Clegg failed to utter a word in defence of Gary McKinnon?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Liberal Democrats opposed the change in the law that allows the US to have extradited from the UK anyone of its choosing without having to present a prima facie case? Our spokespeople might even have warned of the likely consequences.
Well, here is an actual consequence. A British citizen is about to be handed over to the US “Justice” Department, which will consign him to a hellhole prison for the remainder of his life where, before and after a semi-secret show-trial, he will be physically and sexually abused on a routine basis. The prosecutors have said they intend he will “fry”.
Any comment, Mr Clegg?
PS: The Lib Dems have just come third in a town council byelection in Camborne. Pandering to youth-hating sentiment didn’t do the trick.
Sesenco,
I’m glad. Bugger the curfew. What utter balls.
I think James S has a point, but his detractors do too. That is because our system of politics is bankrupt and incapable of effecting meaningful change. The Lib Dems know this and want to do something about it. The other two parties daren’t.
THAT is the party’s unique selling point, boys and girls.
James G, PR? Are you really saying that is our USP?
Did I say PR? No, I’m talking about our whole reform package, from our approach to health reform through to decentralisation.
But if you want us to be free to be more frank and take more risks with the elecorate, the simple fact is the electoral system will always get in the way and force us to focus our efforts on producing lowest common denominator messages aimed at swing voters in marginal constituencies.
Frankly, to pretend otherwise is a bit naive.
“our system of politics is bankrupt and incapable of effecting meaningful change”. Ok articulate that, and our response into a “meaningful” USP.
You do it genius – I’ve got a train to catch. I promise to give you marks out of 10 when I get home.
meow.
I just thought it was time you sang for your supper, given how you’re so keen to point the flaws in what everyone else has to say.
James G
1. I’m critiquing somebody who represents us. I don’t see a problem in doing that for its own sake, regardless of whether I offer a better solution or not.
2. I sort of have outlined something. http://schneiderhome.blogspot.com/2008/08/usp-rennard-and-other-managerialist.html
It is incomplete, which I’m very open about. I’ve also argued what the party narrative should be elsewhere as well.
If I gave the impression that I was needlessly carping and offering nothing in return then I apologise, but I don’t think I did.
I may, occasionally, get a little heated discussing party direction, like you did over our Lisbon policy, because we, as the third party, can make far fewer mistakes than the other two.
I’d be interested to see what you think about my mini proposal and also how you’d go about phrasing the “broken politics” USP.
Cheers,
james
If I misinterpreted your comments as being rude and dismissive, I apologise too. I just think there’s no getting away from the fact that if we are to differentiate ourselves it has to be rooted in our fundamentally liberal critique of power. But I’m not going to go into any more detail now as I have the PDF of a 91 page ‘top secret’ document to read. 😉
Iain Roberts said:
“David Allen: Freedom, fairness and the future. Yes, all nice ideas once you’ve explained them in lengthy paragraphs, but if Chris Rennard had said “freedom, fairness and the future”, you might have rightly pointed out that every party could claim that (with their own different explanations for what they mean by each of those).”
Right, well we’d better explore the relationship between a one-line slogan and a fully-fledged USP, hadn’t we? Now, ML King had a great one-liner, with “I have a dream”. But had he stopped it there, we’d all have just told him he needed to take a cold shower!
So yes, “Freedom, fairness and the future” needs more explanation. So does Chris Rennard’s one-liner, so does James Graham’s.
The test is, can you provide the story that goes with the headline, and thereby create a USP? It has to appeal to voters, it has to convince them that it’s deliverable, and it has to be unique to us – meaning that we are the guys who will deliver it.
Rennard’s “reducing stress” one-liner passes on the “appeal” criterion (because everyone likes freebies). But it fails on “convince” (because nobody trusts freebies). And it fails on “we are the guys” (because everybody, except Gordon that is, wants to do it too). The line isn’t useless, but it sure doesn’t sum up the quintessence of what we are about!
By contrast, James Graham’s “broken politics” and James Schneider’s “freedom” are, I think, much more useful and rather similar concepts. We have to get away from the tyranny of the two big vested interest parties and give back power to people. Now that line is convincing, it’s unique to us (at least if you ignore smaller parties!), and has voter appeal e.g. in respect of ID cards and civil liberties. It’s least strong on voter appeal.
That’s why I also add “fairness” (to pick up the bread-and-butter issues most people care about), and “future” (which will inspire the idealists who will come out and work for us). There are three reasons there. So it’s got to be right!
Yes James, as David said, our two broken politics and freedom narratives are similar and in part contain each other.
Enjoy your top secret work, red fox.