Speaking at a North London fundraising event, Nick Clegg has called for the party to develop a “narrative” to accompany its policies.
Duncan Borrowman and Jonathan Fryer have more.
One would presume the two logical places to start are Ming Campbell’s first major conference speech, in which he called for the Liberal Democrats to create a country that is “free, fair, and green” and the preamble to the constitution.
How you turn that in to a narrative though, I can’t say. How does one recognise a narrative when you see it?
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Ongoing huge cost of Brexit divorce
The Liberal Song, with Jo Grimond on the B-side
jamine.4.t: Elephant
Ruth Clark
nigel hunter
Nonconformistradical
Joe Otten
33 Comments
a good theme so long as we don’t fall into the classic Centipede trap:
A centipede was happy quite,
Until said a frog in fun:
“Pray tell which leg comes after which?”
This raised her mind to such a pitch
she lay distracted in a ditch,
considering how to run.
This goes back to the “What are the LibDems for” question from Mr Jenkins last week. Funnily, it seems, we are the party who has to answer this more than most.
I think we need to answer it, but I don’t think any more than anybody else. Face it, the last time you could really identify what the Tories were about was Thatcherism. And I could just about define Blairism (possibly), but not what Labour are all about.
Those are two good places to start undoubtedly, for the content of any narrative, but what Nick was also talking about was making sure that it was couched in the right language. A language which reflects the concerns and lives of our voters, and significantly those who have never yet voted for us – which are the ones we need to reach the most if we are to increase our share of the vote and representation.
What we tend to do, when attempting to converse in practicalities, is veer off into lists of policies – and so we lose the narrative!!
It’s really very tricky…..
http://concrescence.org/ajpt_papers/vol03/03_rankin.doc
has an interesting definition:
“What is a narrative? The first is to consider narrative as a cultural artefact, a work or text or product that can take many forms but which has the ultimate purpose of telling or unfolding a story. The second approach is to consider narrative as the fundamental mode of human consciousness and self-consciousness. The third approach is to consider the relation between narrative as product and narrative as mode of consciousness. ”
Exactly what it means I’m not sure, still scratching my head a bit.
More importantly is this Clegg’s first step towards a leadership bid?
We have a narrative Rob, the problem is it isn’t a very positive one. It’s a story about an ageing leader who can’t hack it, and is repeated on a daily basis on this very website.
What you’re arguing for is a new narrative. Personally? I think the story is about a sprinter who became a marathon runner, despite the fact that many of the members of his own party thought he was crazy not to make one last, mad dash for victory.
In politics, you don’t just write narratives, you have to live it.
(Oh dear, I appear to have vanished up by own arse. Doesn’t change what I have to say though).
Oooh, this one has come around again. During last year’s Meeting the Challenge exercise, I became so frustrated with people confusing narratives with “key messages” and ideological standpoints that I wrote a long essay to explain my view of what a narrative is and how we might (re)construct one The bottom line, a narrarive is about marketing, branding through telling stories that resonate with existing cultural stories and archetypes – e.g., the proud island nation, “stopping the rot”. And yes, it’s about language and metaphors too.
As those of us on the Federal Executive will know, having a positive narrative was one of the conclusions drawn soon after the last general election. It was felt that we didn’t get across key messages as to how sections of society would benefit from our policies. More importantly, we didn’t take enough people with us along the way. I agree with whoever said this earlier, that we have a big positive message on what we stand for and what we believe in, and it means going back to the preamble of the constituion.
As Neil has said, its important to use language that is accessible to all.
it means not just talking amongst ourselves, and to our membership, but communicating with the disaffected, the disadvantaged, and those who have become alienated by 10 years of Blair. There are thousands out there who have pledged never to vote Labour again. Trouble is, they are not coming across to us as an alternative.
A narrative? – yes, but coupled with key messages.
Not only a narrative, but one that seperates us from the others and makes sense in terms of being Liberal.
I think what is lacking is that if we want to be fair, free and green,it would be helpful if we also had a critique of capitalism. Maybe that will hit a nerve with some, but the Stern report referred to global warming as a “the greatest market failure” and I think we can win back some of our supporters who now support the Greens if we were to make the link more explicit. And yes, in order to make sense this will have some policy implications as well.
“As those of us on the Federal Executive will know, having a positive narrative was one of the conclusions drawn soon after the last general election.”
If the Federal Executive drew that conclusion why, two years later and with our leader calling for an immediate general election, is our Home Affairs spokesman talking about as something we need rather than something which has been done.
Has the FE been sleeping on the job?
Geoff Payne said:
I think what is lacking is that if we want to be fair, free and green, it would be helpful if we also had a critique of capitalism.
*splutter*!
Geoff, I suspect if you wanted to do that without alienating half of your party, you would have to join the Greens!
Speaking personally, the last thing I want is for the Lib Dems to become yet another socialist party.
And besides, that’s not a narrative – that’s changing what the whole party is about.
You’ll notice incidentally that the Greens do have a narrative that – unfortunately – does resonate with people, and it’s nothing to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation. It has much more to do with “loving the planet” and “getting back to nature”. It’s a narrative that wins many votes in spite of – not because of – their policies.
We need a narrative that works for liberalism, and I think Nick is entirely right to bring it up. We are rather good at building a positive narrative for our candidates – “A worker and a winner” is a good example – but less good at doing so for our party. In fact, far too often we’ve let the other parties write it for us.
How about:
A party that wants to help you “take back your democracy”.
That rails against the “big brother society”.
That champions “decisions made by you” – not faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall.
I’d vote for that!
Hywel, Meral, having sat on it for several years, it is quite clear to me that unless there has been an internal political earthquake that I’m unaware of, the FE will be given precisely no say over what the parties key messages will be, narrative or not.
The fundamental problem the party has with ‘narrative’ is several key people at the top don’t have a clue what this means, nor are they the sort of people who are likely to be made to understand. I recall one senior party manager speaking at the “meeting the challenge” conference last year declaring that the party’s “narrative” should be “fair, free and green.” You could hear Neil Stockley’s jaw dropping from the other end of the room.
It’s a shame that the party likes to indulge in Stalin-style airbrushing from time to time. There were a number of excellent articles on the “Meeting the Challenge” website relevant to this debate that have since been taken down.
Oh, that’s a shame, that site was one of my projects… it was probably taken down because the hosting cost a bit of money (separate hosting package to the main Lib Dem web server)… it was on an annual billing cycle, so probably they decided not to renew. I would’ve taken a copy of the site for them if they’d asked.
The text of the site, without graphics, still appears to be largely accessible here though:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060424064251/http://www.meetingthechallenge.net/
Joe,
You are completely over the top in your interpretation of my message, although I did expect a response such as yours.
I suggested a “critique of capitalism”. That does not imply socialism. If I wanted socialism I would have said so. However we should not be naive about capitalism. Stern referred to global warming as the greatest market failure. Stern is a capitalist who nonetheless has a critique of capitalism. And justifiably so. In the US the main lobby groups opposed to supporting Kyoto are financed from the business sector. Ryan Air have launched a vitriolic campaign trying to absolve them from paying green taxes, even the Tories don’t agree with them.
I have been in the Liberal Party and the Lib Dems for well over 20 years, and I do not remember them being so timid in their analysis of capitalism.
Lot’s of umming and ahhing is the problem – leadership requires decisiveness.
We know who we are and now we are telling people.
The narrative has changed – we are no longer questioning our stomach for the fight, we are fighting our corner…the pendulum is swinging and the clock is now ticking.
Do we spread the message that we are prepared for office and ready to take it on? Do we keep on keeping on? …well we’re not giving up!
Do you want to talk spades and shovels, or do you want to dig for victory?
Hmm. Doesn’t get my bins collected once a week. Next!
Ah, now you’re talking. I can cope with a narrative that can be summed up (albeit glibly) as “power to the people”, but I hope we’re prepared for a funeral pyre of proscriptive conference motions and policy documents in order to deliver it.
In the words of the song – “There’s only one way of life (and that’s your own)”
(unless of course you’re ‘harming’ somone else)!
This is my first time contributing. Be gentle! Following on from the Scottish elections, our experience north of the border resonates with this debate. We had a good manifesto with some great policies but no narrative, at least not in the public conscienceness. That is a big problem. People would ask me “what are the Liberals for?” In an even more crowded political market place than in England, identity is very important and asking this basic philosophical question – what is Liberalism today, in British Society – and framing the answer in a set of coherent policies that tell a story, must be the answer.
Easier said than done I guess, but there must be more able minds than mine who are up to the task.
Just want to reassure James that there’s been no earthquake on FE. If there has, I haven’t felt it…
So the question is what purpose does the FE and those elected to it actually serve?
Not wishing to shoot the good guys but if there’s been zero progress on a key issue after two years you’d usually start talking about no confidence.
I’d email the President to complain but he only seems to reply to emails when he’s running for leader.
You could try that Hywel, but the majority of the FE is content to be compliant, not least of all because the majority of the membership is content to be compliant. One of the reasons I’m so sceptical about attacking the leadership is that as far as I can see the grassroots have got EXACTLY the party they have always voted for.
Whenever people have called on them to rise up and take a stand, they just shuffle their feet. That’s democracy for you! 🙂
Rob said\
“Ah, now you’re talking. I can cope with a narrative that can be summed up (albeit glibly) as “power to the people”, but I hope we’re prepared for a funeral pyre of proscriptive conference motions and policy documents in order to deliver it.”
There’s the problem with the narrative then – too much policy.
Too much narrative blurs the picture, just like too much focus on policy causes headaches by magnifying healthy debating positions into splits.
Impatient calls for momentum will be answered if we hit a downward slope, better to emulate Sisyphous with continual effort upward.
Good sense demands balance and perspective, let others carp and criticise.
Peter,
Let’s be even glibber… February 1974 General Election…
James (G) – I share you view on the FE. Just think this is a particularly glaring illustration of how useless it is
And what’s wrong with faceless bureaucrats anyway?
But seriously, why can’t we talk about freedom with responsibility, about giving people a real say about the decisions that affect their day to day lives? Now that’s what I call a narrative.
Frankly, I’m bored of being against things and talking about woolly concepts like fairness. Fairness to whom? Liberalism comes with a clear philosophy and it’s about time we applied it…
In my region a common characteristic of LDs taking local power is their poor ability to manage. It becomes a shooting themselves in the foot progress, but with some individuals who strive to deliver really good outcomes. The implication is that too many LD political hopefuls are muddlers. First develop and use the narrative internally, please – if there is a snap election, there isn’t time to develop and use the narrative in public, and if the election isn’t until 2010 there is time to sharpen up internally and then open up.
25 – this fantastic paragraph is to be found in the Thorpe piece
“But the immediate crisis – desperate as it is – is only the culmination of a long process of deterioration in our ability, and the capacity of our political and social institutions, to manage our counntry’s affairs efficiently and with tolerable sanity.”
Scarcely designed for Sun readers.
The 1970s message was that Britain was being torn apart by class conflict, and that we were the constructive solution. It is harder to make that case nowadays.
“In my region a common characteristic of LDs taking local power is their poor ability to manage.”
Maybe because they try to manage rather than change.
Boy, I’ve come to this late!
I’ve always thought “It’s about freedom” summed it up, but even better is “Trust the people”. I’ve never yet found somebody who does not agree that their life would be better if they were in more control. Even the socialists are usually worrying about other people and not themselves.
We need to push personal freedom and personal responsibility; localism as against statism; smaller and more efficient government; lower and fairer taxes; individual empowerment in every area of life.
If that leads to “a funeral pyre of proscriptive conference motions and policy documents” (Rob Fenwick) then hand me the matches! I was the lone voice at Conference pointing out that Nick “Great Repeal Act” Clegg’s Together We Can Cut Crime policy paper was filled with new meddling regulations that would allow bureaucrats to interfere in private lives and businesses.
I agree with the big-faced bureaucrat: “Liberalism comes with a clear philosophy and it’s about time we applied it…”
At the weekend one of the songs from the Liberator songbook popped into my head.
I thought “Peace, Reform and Liberation” had rather a good ring… 🙂
Peace, Reform and Liberation is a slogan, not a narrative.