Could the Lib Dems really deflate the Reform bubble?

The joy of our election success was shaded by the sizeable Reform UK vote share, and it needs to be taken seriously. Even if by the 2029 election Reform have become a busted flush, it is likely they will have gained numerous council seats along the way and, as a minimum, hold the balance of power in multiple councils. They may well have beachheads in Holyrood, Cardiff and, via the TUV, Stormont. It is not inconceivable that they gain a Police Commissioner or Mayoralty on hardline law and order platforms with a substantial xenophobic sheen. That prospect scares me, and I want a plan for dealing with it that involves us.

Reform voters are not necessarily the same as Reform members. If you exclude active supporters, all parties’ voters are a mix of habitualists, tactical and/or contextual vote lenders, and people who like their local candidate/representative irrespective of party. There are for us Lib Dem voters, people who vote Lib Dem as a rule, sometimes or this time, and plenty who are voting person over party or against someone else. 

Anecdotally, Reform voters appear to come in four broad varieties, with points of internal crossover. The first group are motivated by fears about immigration and culture, and perceived threats to their sense of identity. The second are Brexit-inclined market deregulators who want fiscal credibility and don’t believe the Tories can provide it anymore. The third are economically quite social democratic, with a nationalist glaze, but are unconvinced by Labour (especially now). The fourth are independent-minded localists who want a decent local representative, for whom party comes lower down the list of priorities.

We cannot reasonably expect to appeal to the convinced end of group 1. We are pluralist multicultural inclusive internationalists and thus the natural enemy. That doesn’t mean not engaging with and challenging them, even when it results in a doorstep disagreement and a lost vote, but it’s not fertile ground. We can however be the party that brings over some of the other three camps. We are the party of the ongoing conversation between freedom to and freedom from. We regulate or deregulate, intervene or keep out, actively empower or support people to empower themselves, based on what creates more meaningful, useable, tangible freedom.

If we advocate for a tax cut, it’s because it will do good for the least well-off, not because the Telegraph and corporate donors demand it for the well-paid. If we regulate and use the state to actively enable and protect, it’s to provide security and opportunity, without which even the purest on-paper liberty rings hollow. We cut across Reform’s internal economic contradictions because we start from principle, not their blend of dogma and pantomime. And for the localists, if you want a hardworking, devoted local representative who punches way above their weight whoever is in power, you can do little better than a Liberal Democrat, even if you don’t agree with them about everything.

When we ask for someone’s vote, we aren’t looking for a lifetime commitment or a contract in blood that they promise to go hence and immediately read Mill or Berlin. If a voter believes Nigel Farage is the way, the truth and the light, we are probably not onto a winner. If, however, they have voted for Reform out of frustration and despondency with Labour or the Tories, we can, with a little thought and some sensible and uncynical tailored messaging, give them a reason to vote for us, if not necessarily to love us.

We should also vigorously reclaim the word ‘reform’, in leaflets, speeches and press releases. We are the radical reformists of British politics. We aren’t conservative status quo apologists, and we aren’t tip-the-table-over revolutionaries determined a priori to fatten the state. We are the party of sustainable, intelligent, principled reform, and we have been this whole time.

Norman Lamb, an outstanding liberal example of what we can do when we win, was endorsed by a prominent Ukipper in his seat in 2017. Even given his relative euroscepticism by our standards, no-one believes this was a harmonious meeting of minds; it happened because Norman worked tirelessly for his constituency. I’m not saying that is frequently possible or likely, but it proves that it can happen. The alternative is more turquoise pockets over the next couple of rounds of local elections, and we owe it to our communities, to those who Reform seek to demonise and to ourselves to prevent that however we can. Let’s not leave it to someone else.

 

 

* Jack Nicholls is a returning Liberal Democrat member based in North East England.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

18 Comments

  • Peter Chambers 9th Oct '24 - 3:51pm

    There will be a fifth group of Reform voter. The ANTI.
    I used to have a rule of thumb in the early 1990s, that of our 14% base support
    5% were ANTI (“sod you all”, “none of the above”) and 9% was liberal democratic. Today our base seems to be about 10%. After the Coalition we are unlikely to get support from the ANTI people for Westminster. But they may be in play for locals. For example in an urban Labour one-party state with hopeless Tory opposition.
    That can be a distinct pitch, and a good reason to keep your data updated.

  • Jack Nicholls 9th Oct '24 - 5:26pm

    That’s a good point Peter, and definitely something to consider for those of us primarily facing Labour in local elections.

  • Nigel Jones 9th Oct '24 - 8:33pm

    I share Jack’s concern about Reform UK, being in an area strongly anti-EU and now switched back to Labour in the GE from Conservative. Recent voices indicate doubts about Labour again, especially since Labour has a history of not doing a good job locally. The council became Conservative over a couple of decades suggesting a fairly solid trend towards them locally. Disillusion with both Conservatives and Labour nationally could favour Reform, as indicated by that party’s huge gain in votes in the GE in spite of hardly any campaigning. We need to show LDs are anti-establishment, strongly local alongside the benefits of internationalism, forward looking and practical-minded focussing on help for all people to enjoy contributing to society and have a good quality of life

  • Andrew Tampion 10th Oct '24 - 7:46am

    “The joy of our election success was shaded by the sizeable Reform UK vote share….”
    Actually Reform Uk got nearly 20% more votes than the Liberal Democrats.
    It’s also worth bearing in mind that Reform UK are pro electoral reform and in their 2024 manifesto proposed a referendum on PR. This shows that politics, like life, is complicated and even with perceived enemies there may be scope for cooperation.
    “Anecdotally, Reform voters appear to come in four broad varieties” If you live in the North East there must be Reform UK supporters in your local area so why are you relying on anacdotes and not talking to Refom UK voters yourself to find out what they think and why? Like Norman Lamb did?
    “We should also vigorously reclaim the word ‘reform’….” Does that mean that other parties should use the same means to reclaim the words “liberal” and “democrat” from the Lib Dems?

  • Andrew Tampion 10th Oct '24 - 7:51am

    @Nigel Jones. “We need to show LDs are anti-establishment, strongly local alongside the benefits of internationalism….”
    In my experience that many people, particularly Reform UK voters would consider being pro internationalism and pro EU as being “establishment” positions.

  • We need to wake up to the fact that thoughts of “they’re all the same” and “they are all corrupt and in it for themselves” have never been stronger or as widespread as they are now. That’s what motivates Reform voters and reduces voter turnout generally. Starmer’s early performance and his freebies re-enforces this view. We need to loudly condemn whilst making absolutely sure none of our team catch the same disease and instantly removing any who do.

  • Peter Martin 10th Oct '24 - 9:54am

    @ Andrew Campion,

    “In my experience that many people, particularly Reform UK voters would consider being pro internationalism and pro EU as being “establishment” positions”

    Yep. Some of us on the left too. The supposed internationalism of the EU isn’t really what we’d term genuine internationalism. It’s nearly what it says it is. A European Union. Although a Western European Union would be more accurate.

  • Jack Nicholls 10th Oct '24 - 11:17am

    Nigel, thank you 🙂

    Andrew, thank you, good questions. Taking each in turn:
    – On their vote share, that is exactly what I meant by a shade on our joy in seat success. In the kind of voting system we would prefer, on raw numbers, they would have more seats than us. That’s a concern politically, even though as you say electoral reform is one of the few points of commonality we have with them. We have believed in it for nigh on a century though, certainly longer than the self-described start-up.
    – On Reform voter thinking, I and others have done exactly that, both in the North East and further afield. When I say ‘anecdotally’, I mean information gleaned from chatting and reading rather than by a large scale scientific polling exercise, for which I regrettably lack the personal resources. If only….
    – On language, other parties already do that. Plenty of conservatives have over the years tried to claim that they are the true liberals, from Heseltine to Raab. Labour frequently try and say they are the only progressive option in town. If they want to try that, they can. We are both the true liberals and true reformists of UK politics, and in my view we should say so, loudly and often.

  • Mick Taylor 10th Oct '24 - 2:15pm

    If we are going to grow and get more votes than Reform, then we have to expose them for what they are and put forward an alternative. That is how we countered the rise of the BNP in Burnley. We weren’t mealy mouthed and told it like it is.
    You don’t get rid of reform by becoming more like them as the Tories are doing.

  • Nonconformistradical 10th Oct '24 - 3:58pm

    “You don’t get rid of reform by becoming more like them as the Tories are doing.”

    You said it!

  • Jack Nicholls 10th Oct '24 - 5:01pm

    Mick – I agree. I don’t want us to be anything like reform; my social-civic liberalism extends to almost not believing in borders. I think we can take them on electorally by engaging with people who in ways Labour and the Tories currently can’t.

  • Martin Gray 11th Oct '24 - 1:14pm

    “For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes,”
    Mette Fredrichsen Danish Social Democrat pm

    Not believing in borders has brought a swathe of populist parties to the brink of power across the EU…The progressive left has ultimately failed to address those concerns time and again….

  • Jack Nicholls 11th Oct '24 - 5:25pm

    Thanks Martin, interesting angle. I appreciate it’s a minority view, but I genuinely object to the concept of national borders. I regard them as relics of territorial monarchies, dictators and militarists who could slice and dice them as they chose without consulting anyone, let alone the lower classes, and did.

    The populist right will say we are under threat from soft borders whatever the reality, because that is what they do. If we somehow secured them to their satisfaction, they’d pick something else (more likely, someone else), which is why I’m arguing that a chunk of their voters can and should be pulled away from them by concentrating on the actual causes of their concerns, not what the populists tell them to believe.

    I agree that globalisation in its present, corporate autocrat form, victimises poorer people, but the answer is a freer, more open world with more options. You are absolutely correct that the progressive left has failed at this, as had the mainstream right, because neither understand both liberty and equality. My limited knowledge of Fredrichsen is that she is a perfect example of a thoroughly illiberal authoritarian social democrat, and not someone whose analysis I’m inclined to embrace.

  • Peter Martin 11th Oct '24 - 7:50pm

    @ Jack Nicholls,

    ” but I genuinely object to the concept of national borders. ”

    So’d like borders to be totally open for both the movement of people and goods?

    It’s a nice ideal but have you thought this through? Without borders the Nation State wouldn’t exist. No Nation State would mean laws also wouldn’t exist. Taxes wouldn’t exist. Its money wouldn’t exist. If the UK did this, what was previously the UK could be taken over by anyone who had a mind to do so!

    Many on the so called progressive centre left tend to downplay the importance of the State and believe that modern corporations have all the power. Actually they don’t. The money they have, and strive to acquire more of, is a creation of the State. They understand the need to have as many paid lobbyists as they do to ensure that the legislators don’t fully use the power that is theoretically all theirs.

    https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745337326/reclaiming-the-state/

  • Jack Nicholls 12th Oct '24 - 7:19am

    Hi Peter – that’s a fair assessment of things as they are now, and in that last section you perfectly illustrate how influence on government can itself become a rigged market. I can see the argument that lobbying is evidence of the retained power of the state, my angle is rather that lobbying is evidence that large corporations will do whatever they can to influence and control centres of power, and the more money you have, the more powerfully you can do it.

    Back to borders, yes it would definitely mean the end of the state as it currently manifests, and with it all the evil that the state can bring to bear if it wants to because of, as you say, its current enormous power. That does not have to mean the end of nations – nations become a structure of common consent, like a bowls club or a (disestablished) church. You choose to belong, pay the dues (taxes) and reap the benefits, and there are rules for departing if you choose to or if you want to move. Not for a second would this be a utopia, and just as well – one person’s paradise is another person’s fascistic nightmare – but I don’t think the state as currently extant works particularly well. If your state wants to kill you because of who you are, the only escape is via a set of permitted (or if they are beyond your means, dangerous and illegal) travel options and a humiliating and bureaucratic set of processes where people you didn’t get to vote for decide if you can stay or get sent back. The state can be a great protector when it chooses to, but it has to choose to and a lot of the time it doesn’t, partly because someone like Reform shows up and lies until the state relents (or they take over, as may be about to happen in parts of continental Europe).

    Anyway, I’m extemporising on a theoretical concept – my point was to clarify my credentials as someone who wants to take Reform voters because I loathe Reform, not because I think we should move closer to them. I appreciate the thoughtful counterargument ☺️

  • Calling for Open Borders is pure voter repellant to all but a small faction of extremely liberal/progressive people.

    Where are they all going to live? In tents? It would involve either massive overcrowding, homelessness or house building on a biblical scale.

    Also unless there is a completely unlimited pot of money, how is the UK taxpayer going to house, provide social security to and pay for medical care for the world’s population.

    It won’t do much for the environment in this country too and people need resources and land, there is only a limited supply of this.

    There is also the security risk too.

    Calling for Open Borders as a party will lead to an electoral annihilation for the party, it would also make Reform even more popular.

  • Peter Martin 13th Oct '24 - 10:55am

    @ Jack,

    “….my point was to clarify my credentials as someone who wants to take Reform voters because I loathe Reform”

    Maybe. But, how are you going to take on Reform by confirming their worst suspicions of the left? The dislike of Reform by the liberal centre left stems from the recent clash on membership of the EU. Sure, there are other political disagreements too, but I’d put it as 85% about the EU and 15% about other matters.

    The dislike of borders by the EU leadership only applies to internal borders. The EU is as keen as any other Nation State to preserve its external borders, impose tariffs on trade, regulate the movement of people, stamp out the illegal trade in narcotics etc.

    It’s just another Nation State albeit not yet full formed. I wouldn’t criticise the EU for that. Like it or not it is the only viable model which is known to work.

  • Jack Nicholls 13th Oct '24 - 2:55pm

    To be very clear, I am personally and individually keen on the idea of a completely borderless world. I am not saying we should unilaterally open our borders, I am not saying my view should be party policy and I am not claiming the EU is or was externally unbordered or, in and of itself, should have been. I might gently point out that a bordered world is not preventing far, far too many people from living in tents with inadequate medical care or horrific environmental damage happening, partly because capital can cross borders very easily with no regard for the people living within them. I also don’t think that one party member having one view on one issue that he acknowledges to be an outlier is going to confirm anything to anybody who
    doesn’t already think it. We have however always stuck up for ideas that were once considered voter repellent until they weren’t, and people voted for us even when they didn’t agree with us on all of them.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Joseph Bourke
    When I worked in the USA in the 1980s and early 1990s, Japan was the bogeyman on trade particularly for Detroit car manufacturers. There were a lot of press ari...
  • Jenny Barnes
    There may very well be WTO rules, but the USA will only abide by them if they feel like it, having made the Appelate body unworkable by refusing to appoint new ...
  • Peter Martin
    Fortunately, both sides are limited in what they can do by the rules of the WTO. The problem has been brewing for years and so predates Trump. It has been th...
  • Fiona
    I agree William that we must be careful to avoid letting moral outrage get the better of us. He's been elected, and he's going to be president, and will continu...
  • Geoff Reid
    Between them Ed and William have given us a very good start to our thinking about our response to the US election result. My understanding of American politics ...