Facing the Future: the missing international question

A combination of meetings and media mean I cannot make it into the hall later this morning for the debate on the party’s Facing the Future policy consultation (pdf copy of document here). It is a document setting out the broad questions (sixty-two in all, though Q59 bears a striking resemblance to Q53) intended to shape the party’s future policy development. Had I been able to make it, this is the necessarily brief speech I would have wanted to give about the last three in the document, on international affairs.

There are two near certainties about any broad policy review such as this one.

First, its title will be uncontroversial and instantly forgettable: Ignoring the Future, Moving Backwards, The Next Moves Sideways and Avoid The Challenge, Dodge The Change never quite make it as titles.

Second, the need to boil down the whole range of party policy to a set of strategic questions means the debate sees a sequence of people saying how much they like the paper, but there is just one thing they want to add…

Foreign Office, LondonI plead guilty to edging close to that pattern. But before that I would like to say how good it is to see how frequently there are mentions of the changes which technology is bringing to our economy, our society and our politics. That is a welcome and refreshing change from their almost complete absence in this May’s otherwise very strong general election manifesto.

The international affairs section, tucked in at the end, however leaves me less impressed. The special relationship with the US. The legacy of empire and the hanging on of the Commonwealth. Our record of fighting alongside the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our special status in many international institutions. All these are crucial to our role in the world and how others see us.

Deciding what our role should be in the world, and how to work to make others judge us as we wish to be judged, should be central to our consideration of international affairs. Yet that question is not directly addressed.

So when the policy working group fleshes out issues that have been debated in the paper and draws up its plans for the detailed work of the policy review, I hope it will put that consideration of our role in the world at the centre of the international affairs work.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Conference, Op-eds and Party policy and internal matters.
Advert

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

  • Tim Leunig
    re "Increasing NI on employers adds to production costs and hence prices. " - the OBR estimate that three quarters of the cost of increasing NI on employers wil...
  • Tim Leunig
    Don't forget that the minimum wage in the UK is one of the highest in the world, relative to average wages, following the last govt's acceptance of the Dube rev...
  • Katharine Pindar
    Suzanne, I absolutely agree with you, and am shocked that I am not aware of a statement from our party condemning the new policy of people deemed to have entere...
  • Paul R
    “That means guaranteeing fair wages, empowering communities to shape the policies that affect their lives, and fostering a culture of accountability” The...
  • Mary Fulton
    So increases in income tax and cuts to large part of the public sector? Sounds like a recipe to ensure Reform UK builds its support even further…...