Five quick observations about Vince’s speech

Having covered Not the Leader’s Speech, it is only fair to give you the chance to see the actual Leader’s Speech again. It was very different in style from the bouncy style of Tim Farron, but no less compelling to listen to.

You can watch it in full below and the text follows. There are four quick observations I’d like to make, first, though.

Firstly, note that PR has been displaced as our number 1 ask on political reform by votes at 16. By doing so, Vince emphasises his commitment to ending intergenerational unfairness. He talked about how young people had had no say in their future which had been limited by older people voting for Brexit.
He wants to ensure that they have a say in future decisions.

This all makes perfect sense as it is achievable and something that has been our policy for as long as I can remember anyway.

I might have been inclined to take the joke about us inviting Corbyn to join the Anti-Brexit People’s Liberation Front out. It was a joke aimed at highlighting Corbyn’s lefty student style of politics, but it didn’t work out of context and jarred slightly when I saw it on tweets from the BBC.

Thirdly, he did acknowledge that the issue of student fees was still a problem for us. A review is fraught with problems as it then has to come back to Conference and the whole thing is gone over again and the papers write about it all over again. Of course, he couldn’t do anything else or he’d have been accused of trying to make policy over the heads of Conference but it is to be hoped that this review happens very quickly. If David got his skates on and had something ready for Spring, that would be entirely satisfactory. The whole thing is a risk, but less of a risk than doing nothing. We have to be seen to be taking this one on.

Fourthly, he wants us in Government. On our own. A big ambition, but I’d rather see him say that than say that he wants us to go up a wee bit in the polls. We have to show what a Lib Dem world would look like.

Finally, the best bit of the speech for me was this:

We know, of course, that our call will be resented by the Brexit fundamentalists.

We will be denounced as traitors and saboteurs.

I’m half prepared for a spell in a cell with Supreme Court judges, Gina Miller, Ken Clarke, and the governors of the BBC.

But if the definition of sabotage is fighting to protect British jobs, public services, the environment and civil liberties, then I am a proud saboteur.

It’s very bold and I hope we all use that quote as often as possible from now on.

Vince had 3 things to do at this Conference. He had to firmly establish us as the Party of Remain – unequivocally fighting to stay in the EU. Secondly, he had to showcase his credentials as the foremost economically literate grown-up on the political scene in this country. He did that. Thirdly, he had to showcase a wider commitment to sort things out for those people who voted Leave because they are struggling. He has put tackling inequality, most particularly wealth and inter-generational unfairness, front and centre of what he wants to achieve. As Jo Swinson said on Sunday, an exit from Brexit is necessary but not sufficient.

He did all three of these things extremely well.

It is with a real sense of pride that I stand before you as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

First of all, I’d like to put on record my thanks to my predecessor, Tim Farron.

He hands over a Party, which is larger, stronger and more diverse than the one he inherited.

He stood up for refugees whose plight the government had shamefully ignored.

He established our very clear identity as the only real, undiluted pro-European party.

We are all hugely indebted to him.

It’s good, today, to be amongst friends.

So please forgive me if I start by addressing people who are not yet our friends, but whom we might persuade.

People who say they don’t know what we stand for, or that we are irrelevant.

Anyone who doubts the relevance of the Liberal Democrats should reflect on the three great disasters perpetrated by the two main parties in recent years:

the war in Iraq; the banking crisis; now Brexit.

You may remember that the Labour Government, egged on by the Conservative opposition, plunged this country into a disastrous, illegal war.

It helped to fuel the jihadist movements which terrorise the Middle East, and our own country, and our allies, to this day.

And it was only the Liberal Democrats, under Charles Kennedy, who showed sound judgement and political courage when it was needed.

I am immensely proud to have served my parliamentary apprenticeship in that company.

Then, the same government lost control of the economy.

It allowed reckless and greedy bankers to run amok.

Yet again, the Conservatives egged Labour on, demanding even less restraint.

The Liberal Democrats warned that it would end badly. And it did.

An economy built on banking and property speculation was left dangerously exposed to the global financial crisis.

And the baleful consequences are still with us: our economy continues to be dependent on the life support system
of ultra-cheap money, which is now inflating a new credit bubble;

and also a real sense of resentment…that wealth inequalities have widened and only the super-rich have flourished in this post-crisis world.

In 2010, after all that, we could then have stood aside, washing our hands of responsibility….

….the party that said “we told you so”. But we didn’t.

We went into government, in the national interest, to repair the damage.

It was the right thing to do and Nick Clegg led us courageously in doing it.

And while thinking about Nick, I know you will all want to join me in sending him and Miriam our collective best wishes as Antonio, and the whole family, emerge from what has been a very tough and anxious time.

Our thoughts are with them.

Nick has been much vilified by our opponents…

…but we are proud of him and his record.

I am certain that just as Parliament now misses his voice, history will vindicate his judgement.

You need only look at our record to know it.

In Government we did a lot of good and we stopped a lot of bad.

Don’t let the Tories tell you that they lifted millions of low-earners out of income tax. We did.

Don’t let the Tories tell you they launched an apprenticeship revolution or the Industrial Strategy. We did.

Don’t let the Tories tell you that they brought in the pupil premium and free school meals….

We did that. The Liberal Democrats did that.

But we have paid a very high political price.

Trust was lost.

For many voters, we still have to scrub ourselves hard to get rid of the smell of clearing up other people’s mess.

And now, another disaster looms.


The product of a fraudulent and frivolous campaign led by two groups of silly public school boys…

…reliving their dormitory pillow fights.

And thanks to Boris Johnson, they have degenerated into a full scale school riot with the Headteacher hiding, barricaded in her office.

In the real world, we’ve yet to experience the full impact of leaving Europe.

But we’ve had a taste of what is to come, in the fall in the value of the pound.

Foreign exchange dealers are not point scoring politicians.

They make cold, hard, unsentimental judgements…

…Quite simply, Brexit Britain will be poorer and weaker than if we had decided to stay in Europe.

Brexit was described by the Brexit Secretary himself as an operation of such technical complexity that it makes the moon landing look simple.

I have to say it is a pity that the Brexit landing is being managed by people who would struggle to get their heads around a toddlers’ lego set.

These are people who live in a world of infantile fairy tales.

…I’m sure you know the one about the Giant Tweeter…who lives in a White House far away and who flies across the ocean to rescue us from the wicked Gnomes of Europe.

But to be serious, for a moment, it is both extraordinary and unforgiveable that the Government is entrusting the future of this country …

…its trade policy, its security, its standing in the world – to a special relationship with a President who is volatile, dangerous and an apologist for religious and racial hatred.

It is an outrage that this man – who now presumes to attack our highly effective police and security services – has been invited here on a state visit…

As Jo Swinson so rightly said on Sunday………

No red carpet for President Trump – The visit should be cancelled.

Let me say a few words about Labour.

Many people got behind Jeremy Corbyn in June, genuinely expecting a better politics and a better future.

They are already being betrayed.

Today’s Labour Party isn’t into problem solving; let alone governing.

Jeremy Corbyn’s acolytes are focused on how to maximise the contradictions of capitalism.

You don’t qualify for the Labour Shadow Cabinet these days unless you have studied the Venezuelan guide on how to bankrupt a rich economy.

It’s no wonder they backed Brexit.

It’s no wonder they lined up behind Theresa May, maximising the chances of chaos and disruption.

Then a few weeks ago the moderates briefly penetrated the Corbyn bunker.

They persuaded him that collaborating quite so closely with the class enemy didn’t look too good.

So, they’ve got a new policy:

which is to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union…… possibly; or to leave……maybe.

Or maybe to stay in for a bit, and then leave.

I am being kind here: I am trying to understand what they are trying to say.

I think the current line is…we should transition to the transition gradually while we prepare for a post transition world.

This is what they mean by the smack of firm leadership.

I believe Jeremy Corbyn would do a lot better to get off the fence and refurbish his revolutionary credentials.

So Jeremy – join us in the Anti Brexit People’s Liberation Front!

What the people want…

…What the country now desperately needs is some political adults.

That’s you. That’s us.

Fortunately, we are not alone.

There are sensible grown-ups in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party and the Greens.

And beyond them are millions of people who are deeply worried about what is happening.

We have got to put aside tribal differences and work alongside like-minded people…to keep the Single Market and Customs Union, so essential for trade and jobs;

Europe’s high environmental and social standards; the shared research; help for our poorer regions; cooperation over policing and terrorism.

Europe, of course, needs reform but you don’t achieve reform by walking away.

Our position is clear: The Liberal Democrats are the party of Remain.

The government meanwhile is stuck in divorce negotiations for which it is hopelessly ill-equipped, ill-prepared, and internally divided.

So I have some practical advice for Theresa May.

Take the issue of European Union nationals in the UK and British nationals in Europe out of these negotiations.

Because using them as bargaining chips is not only morally wrong but utterly counter-productive.

Put the lives of 4 million people first, not the posturing internal politics of the Conservative Party.

No ifs, no buts.

The government should declare a Right to Stay – now.

At the end of these tortuous divorce negotiations, the British public must be given a vote on the outcome.

Let me be clear about this.

This is not a call for a re-run.

This is not a call for a second referendum on Brexit.

This is a call for a first referendum on the facts.

When we know what Brexit means, the people should get the choice:

The Government deal or an ‘exit from Brexit’.

We know, of course, that our call will be resented by the Brexit fundamentalists.

We will be denounced as traitors and saboteurs.

I’m half prepared for a spell in a cell with Supreme Court judges, Gina Miller, Ken Clarke, and the governors of the BBC.

But if the definition of sabotage is fighting to protect British jobs, public services, the environment and civil liberties, then I am a proud saboteur.

Brexiteers will say: “we have already voted to leave. How dare you people flout democracy.”

It is actually quite difficult to follow this argument…

It seems to go…that consulting the public – having a vote – is undemocratic.

Why? What are they afraid of?

Are they afraid that the claims of £350m a week for the NHS won’t wash any more?

That claim has rightly been dismissed in the last few days by the independent UK Statistics Authority.

No wonder Boris and the Brexiteers are so frightened of the people…and the facts.

They now believe in the slogan of dictators everywhere: ‘one person, one vote, once!’.

I am a grandparent.

I am concerned about the country my grandchildren will inherit.

I am already getting a colourful correspondence from people of my own generation claiming that I have betrayed them.

That I have given up too easily on reinventing the British Empire and on the dream of Britain without foreigners.

I am still struggling, actually, to think of an answer to the woman who challenged me, in all seriousness, to explain how her Wiltshire village would cope with the arrival of 60 million Turks.

Now I recognise that the true believers in Brexit are honest enough to admit that it will make us poorer….

…There is another word for that: masochism.

It isn’t illegal. I am told some people pay good money to indulge in it.

But unlike masochists, the Brexit ideologues usually envisage someone else bearing the pain.

And that pain will mainly be felt by young people who overwhelmingly voted to Remain.

But this argument cannot go on forever.

Once the issue is resolved by a vote on the facts, we must then try to unite a very divided country around the outcome.

So yes, I want our party to lead the fight against Brexit.

But we should not be consumed by Brexit to the exclusion of everything else.

We are not a single-issue party…we’re not UKIP in reverse.

I see our future as a party of government.

Our party is not just a Coalition partner of the past, we are the government of the future.

And my role, as your leader, is to be a credible potential Prime Minister.

I know some of you might say, looking at the alternatives, that the bar isn’t very high.

Theresa May is giving us a compelling display of weak and wobbly government:

divided, dysfunctional, and dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party.

We all know that her colleagues want to sack her… bring in somebody more attuned to the challenges of modernity….

….I guess that is why a current leading candidate for the succession is, according to bookmakers, Jacob Rees-Mogg… On a dream ticket with his nanny.

Then we have the Labour Party.

I do have one great advantage over Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a great team: our Shadow Cabinet has 10 former ministers, 3 of whom served in Cabinet.

And I’m proud that one of them is now our superb Deputy Leader, Jo Swinson.

My team has been bloodied in the difficult business of government.

By contrast, in a parliamentary party of 262 MPs, Jeremy Corbyn can find only two people who have been anywhere near Cabinet, to serve in his alternative administration.

All the other plausible candidates for office have walked out or been thrown out.

And the question now presents itself: what would they actually do in power?

What would a Corbyn government look like?

Their basic appeal is to offer something for nothing. All paid for by someone else.

For them budgeting is just a bourgeois hobby.

I first encountered this politics of free things as a young Treasury official in Kenya.

President Kenyatta – the father – faced defeat in an election against an opposition offering lots of freebies: free food, free land, free cows, free cars.

He turned to my department for help.

We came up with a winning slogan – Hapana Chakula Kabisa.

Roughly translated it meant: there is no such thing as a free lunch.

(Unless of course it is a Lib Dem free school lunch!)

But money and priorities define the crucial difference between us and Labour.

We understand that to govern is to choose. And they don’t.

That’s why only we are honest with people about the service which everyone in this country cares about, and which Labour always claims to champion.

The NHS.

If we want a decent service, we’ve all got to pay for it.

For starters, Liberal Democrats will continue to argue for another penny in the pound on income tax to pay for it.

That means more than £6bn extra each year for the NHS and social care, and the funding we need for our priority…
…proper care for those suffering mental illness.

If you want a real champion for Britain’s NHS, the Liberal Democrats are the party for you.

The attraction of the Labour campaign, however, was that it offered hope.

Hope counters despair.

Hope can inspire.

Hope can achieve change.

But what hope cannot do is make 2+2=7.

What the country needs is hope AND realism.

In a Britain increasingly dominated by extremists and ideologues, I want us to fill the huge gap in the centre of British politics.

Liberal Democrats have always grappled with the big challenges facing our country and our world.

I am determined that, to meet them, our party will once again become a workshop for new ideas.

Hope and realism starts with the economy.

Because without a successful economy we won’t have the resources to fix an overstretched NHS,

underfunded schools,

understaffed police forces,

and perilously overcrowded prisons.

We currently have a low productivity, low wage economy lagging well behind Germany.

And while France is modernising, Britain is lurching down a nostalgic cul-de-sac of Brexit.

And Britain’s strengths – and there are real, considerable strengths…

…its openness to trade, people, ideas, its world class universities and inventiveness.

These things are being put at risk.

What the country needs…

more investment;

more innovation;

more training and retraining;

more patient, long term capital;

the renaissance of manufacturing

and the nurturing of creative industries;

the greening of the economy.

To achieve these things requires overcoming the petty tribalism and short termism which are the bane of British politics.

We made some progress under the Coalition when we launched and pursued the Industrial Strategy, working with both sides of industry – management and workers.

I also drew on the legacy of political opponents, Labour and Conservatives.

Because the test should not be ‘who said it’.

It should be ‘what works best?’; sometimes the state; sometimes private enterprise; usually a practical combination of the two.

Long term thinking means, above all, having an understanding of sustainability and climate change.

It is very striking that the most fervent apostles of Brexit are climate change deniers.

Striking, but not surprising because climate change doesn’t respect national frontiers and national sovereignty.

I think it’s tragic that Ed Davey’s sterling work in the Coalition is now being trashed by Conservative ministers, who revel in anti-scientific ignorance.

It is absolutely galling to see the sell-off of the Green Investment Bank to a private sector asset-stripper…

To see the Green Deal ditched, the Swansea lagoon delayed, carbon capture and storage abandoned…

…To see the Conservatives doing a massive u-turn on Heathrow expansion…

The Conservatives describe protecting the environment as ‘green crap’.

By contrast, Liberal Democrats will always fight for the green agenda.

More than anything else, investing in people is the key to a successful modern economy.

Britain is fortunate to have excellent universities, many of them world class.

But only a minority, and generally a better off minority, go to university.

As a country we have systematically undervalued and disrespected the 60% of young people who do not go to university, and the 80% of adults who never went.

That is why I have been working with the National Union of Students on a programme to help all young people.

Many will go into further, and vocational, education but
Britain’s record in technical education and training so far is woeful, which is why we now have a chronic skills shortage.

That is why in government, the Liberal Democrats launched an apprenticeship revolution.

We made a lot of progress but there is so much more to do to ensure that high quality apprenticeships and training are an option available to every young person.

I hope you will indulge me if I explain a bit of family history which shows why I care passionately about this subject.

My own parents left school at 15 to work in factories in York.

My father went to night school and qualified to teach building trades at a further education college.

He and I fell out over his right-wing politics but I never lost my admiration for his life’s work with skilled workers, technicians, craftsmen; people that we now desperately lack.

And my mother’s experience makes the point in a different way.

She discovered night school after a prolonged period of mental illness when I was a child.

She discovered education as an adult; and it helped her to recover.

I was able to apply this experience in government.

Alongside Norman Lamb, we were able to secure some funding to reintroduce classes in adult colleges for those suffering mental illness.

And it has been a great success.

But the bigger point is the value for everyone, of continued adult learning.

Millions of workers in middle age now face their office and factory jobs disappearing with the advance of automation and artificial intelligence.

We’ve got to be the party with the answers for those people.

One idea I want to develop with you – with the party – is finding a way to support all young people in future with an endowment or learning account, which they can use at any stage in life….

…helping to finance further or higher education, either at the post-18 stage or later in life.

It is a fundamentally liberal idea, handing control to the individual, and I want to explore how it can be sustainably financed through fair taxation of wealth.

Under my leadership, our party will be the champions of lifelong learning, giving everyone a chance of self-improvement and employment at every stage in life.

We can’t effectively modernise our economy until we radically reform finance.

We’ve got global banks that have little interest whatever in promoting British business and local economies.

We’ve got obsessively short term capital markets that have the collective attention span of a goldfish.

We’ve got banks that will only lend when secured against property…

…to people who want to buy houses…

…but not businesses who want to build them

…to real estate speculators, but not to exporters and innovators.

Liberal Democrats want to see financiers be the servants of Britain’s real economy, rather than its masters.

We did a lot in Coalition to improve things: establishing the British Business Bank, the Green Investment Bank and the business Growth Fund for risk capital;

…splitting the casinos from conventional banking; promoting a culture of long termism; opening up the market to challenger banks.

But that is just the beginning of what is needed to lift Britain from what at present is a dangerous over dependence on property markets and banks in the SE corner of England.

Public investment complements private investment.

This country needs a massive injection of public investment.

…in the railway network – across the north of England and the Midlands to Wales and the South West.

…and in broadband.

…and in housing.

Every pound spent building modern Britain will be returned many times over.

Never in British economic history has it been cheaper for a bold, active government to borrow for productive investment, alongside the private sector

…so why is this government so feeble and so passive?

I want our party to be pro-business and pro-enterprise.

British business is in desperate need of a champion and we will be that champion.

Not for the sake of it but because Britain succeeds when they succeed.

Growing numbers have given up on the Conservative Party, because they know it has abandoned British business.

Their home is now with us.

Progressive British firms know, too, that being pro-business doesn’t mean being anti-worker.

I spent five years in Government fighting off Tory plans to introduce ‘fire at will’ and to abolish the right to strike.

We are pro-business and we are also pro-worker.

And because we believe in competitive markets and the rights of consumers, it is time to tackle the abuse of corporate power.

Take the communications and technology companies…
…They have access to vast amounts of personal data and information to use and abuse.

It’s not a coincidence that the only body strong enough to stand up to Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook is the European Commission.

Does anybody seriously believe that a post-Brexit British government will do anything other than roll over when the big boys in come looking for favours or dodging taxes at will?

As some of you know, I have had occasional disagreements with Mr Rupert Murdoch.

But not always.

He is, for example, reported to have said “When I am in Brussels, they tell me what to do. When I am in Downing St, I tell them what to do.”

He got it in one.

As he knows all too well, wealth and power feed off each other.

So do powerlessness and poverty.

If there is any single lesson from the Grenfell disaster, it is that people in poverty aren’t listened to.

Nowhere is inequality more marked than in the housing market.

Property wealth for the fortunate coexists with growing insecurity and homelessness for many others.

Home ownership, which spread wealth for generations, is no longer a realistic prospect for younger people with moderate means.

To put this right, we must end the stranglehold of oligarchs and speculators in our housing market.

I want to see fierce tax penalties on the acquisition of property for investment purposes, by overseas residents.

And I want to see rural communities protected from the blight of absentee second home ownership, which devastates local economies and pushes young people away from the places where they grew up.

Homes are to live in; they’re not pieces on a Monopoly board.

But whatever we do with existing homes will not be enough.

A doubling of annual housing supply to buy and rent is needed.

For years politicians have waffled about house building while tinkering at the edges of the market.

I want to recapture the pioneering spirit that in the mid-20th century brought about developments like Milton Keynes and the new towns…

…I want to see a new generation of garden cities and garden villages spring up in places where demand presently outstrips supply.

But we know that private developers alone will not make this happen.

Just as social reformers in the 1950s and 60s saw government roll up its sleeves and get involved with building, government today has a responsibility to be bold…

…and to build more of the homes we need for the 21st century.

It is utterly absurd that councils are allowed to borrow to speculate in commercial property…

…but are stopped from borrowing to build affordable council houses.

This triumph of ideological dogma over common sense must stop.

Government must take the lead…and get building.

The housing crisis is at the heart of a growing and deeply corrosive inequality…between generations.

Elderly people, of course, deserve respect.

Some people have even accused me of being one of them.

The state pension – thanks to the Coalition – has rightly been protected.

But meanwhile young people face employment that is insecure, and unaffordable housing.

And – now – a future of narrowing horizons and closing frontiers, which the vast majority of under 25s never voted for.

As Britain’s government of the future, Liberal Democrats will always be their voice and their champion.

But there is an elephant in the room.

Debt – specifically student debt.

We all know we suffered grievous political harm from making a pledge seven years ago on tuition fees that we couldn’t meet.

The problem hasn’t gone away.

We are faced with a fundamental dilemma. The changes we made in Government ensured universities are properly funded.

And it is right that the most highly paid graduates pay most; those who earn least pay nothing at all.

Yet just because the system operates like a tax, we cannot escape the fact it isn’t seen as one…

…the worry about debt does cause students and their families real concern.

Escalating student loan interest rates add to that concern.

And many universities are obsessed with getting bums on seats rather than giving students value for money.

I have therefore launched a review, led by former Cambridge MP David Howarth, which will recommend options for reform, including a graduate tax.

We will consult on the outcome through the party’s policy process, and I aim for its results to come before you at a future conference.

We value the support of students, so we must get this issue right.

We also know that the most pressing issue for students day-to-day, and the main source of debt, is the cost of living.

Under our Government, the number of students from poorer households increased, in part because Liberal Democrats improved maintenance grants.

The Tories have now trashed that record by slashing those grants altogether.

They should be ashamed to see any student deciding to terminate their studies because they cannot pay the rent.

But young people need more than financial support.

They need a political voice.

That is why votes at 16 are at the centre of our campaigning for political reform.

If it is OK to vote at 16 and 17 in Scotland, then it’s OK to vote at 16 and 17 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

This reform sits alongside proportional representation for Westminster and for English and Welsh local government;

a fully elected House of Lords; reform of party funding; and radical decentralisation from central to local government.

We are the party of political reform.

And in particular, we are the party of devolution, and we have proved how well it works.

I want to pay particular tribute to our campaign teams in Scotland for their advances under Willie Rennie, and to Kirsty Williams for the superb job she is doing as Welsh Education Secretary.

But before we overhaul what is fundamentally a broken political system we have to demonstrate that we can win under the existing system.

That means opening the way to many more Lib Dem councils and MPs, by getting back, at least, to the national vote share we enjoyed before 2010.

I believe it can be done.

But it won’t be until we have a party that looks like modern Britain.

Thanks to the efforts of our Party President, Sal Brinton, and others, progress has been made in improving gender balance, but it is still inadequate.

I demonstrated in government a commitment to this issue by working with women in business to achieve a demanding target for women on the boards of top companies.

I am committed to similar ambition in our own party.

We have even further to travel in ensuring that we have proper Black, Asian and Minority representation at all levels.

As many of you know, I married into an Asian family and we brought up a multiracial family in this country.

My own family has flourished.

But I am perhaps more conscious than many of the subtle, and often not so subtle, barriers that exist.

And now there is an upsurge of xenophobia and racism, which many of us dared to hope had been banished for good.

There is much to be done before we can call our country and our party successfully integrated.

But I am optimistic.

We believe in equality.

We have demonstrated through the work of Lynne Featherstone and others on equal marriage that we can lead public opinion in a liberal direction.

I am optimistic too for our party.

We have had several difficult years since the formation of the Coalition.

But I know there is a great deal of resilience, energy and self-discipline in the party which will fuel our recovery.

There are big opportunities created by our distinctive and clear leadership of anti-Brexit opinion and by the growing self-indulgent extremism in both the Conservative and Labour parties.

I know you are impatient for success.

This country is impatient for success.

I am impatient for success.

But I know too the value of endurance.

Success is often laced with setback.

I reflect on one of the most difficult periods of my life, when many of you will know that I lost my first wife.

In time, I recovered and I found a new partnership with Rachel.

She has sustained and supported me ever since.

Her energy and dedication to me is the source of my energy and dedication to this party.

And politics has proved an even greater waiting game than life.

I had to wait 30 years from my first campaign to win a seat in Parliament.

I had to wait two years to return, after the setback in 2015.

But now, friends, the time for waiting is over.

Only the Liberal Democrats have the ideas, the experience and the commitment to transform the fortunes of our country.

An exit from Brexit.

A grown-up approach to the economy.

And bold ideas to strengthen our society through the 21st century.

I am ready to take our message out to the country…

…and I ask you to join me on the journey as we, together, take the Liberal Democrats…

…back to Government.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • You don’t end generational unfairness by letting younger people vote in a system rigged so their views don’t count. That doesn’t change the political system any more than lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 did.

    The Lib Dems won’t change the political system by giving up before they have even started. They should be talking about how the political system is broken every time someone is in the media or gets to ask a question in Parliament. Of course there will be ridicule and people will say they are getting bored but that is how you start to make progress.

    In 1994 Nigel Farage fought a by-election in Eastleigh and polled less than 1000 votes. 13 years later his party had achieved their over-riding objective. In that time Lib Dem progress towards PR for Westminster was pretty limited (and basically zero since about 1999). Now criticise UKIP all you want but they delivered on their main objective. Now the Lib Dems are giving up on theirs.

    (Oh – and what is the weird thing about helping Kenyatta get re-elected. If I’d done that I’d really want to keep it quiet!)

  • Lorenzo Cherin 20th Sep '17 - 11:55am

    A very good appraisal. I do not think voting at sixteen is in policy a priority more than proportional representation. The voting age changes our system very little , it merely lets more voters in to a terrible process, rather than changes the terrible process !Also, few care about the issue other than the right on types, even many students do not think it important as eighteen is old enough for many of the. I a happy to see it change , but pr is a priority that differentiates us.

    Sir Vince did not steer us anywhere radical, though I have no problems with him at all, his style and substance are not going to win converts fast .

    We need some personalities that can emerge that are fresh but also have gravitas.

  • Laurence Cox 20th Sep '17 - 12:24pm

    Were you aware that Oginga Odinga was the the person trying to defeat Kenyatta? He wanted to associate Kenya with Communist Russia and China while Kenyatta wanted to retain relationships with the West. Had he won, Kenya might well have ended up like Zimbabwe (not that I have much time for any African politicians apart from Mandela, but at least Kenya is still a democracy where the Supreme Court can overturn an election if malpractice has occurred).

    It’s not just votes at 16. In that segment of the speech Vince was also talking about PR for Westminster and local government in England and Wales, a fully-elected Upper Chamber and radical decentralisation from central to local government. Put it all together and it is the radical change that you deny by picking on the least important part of it and ignoring the rest.

  • I found it all a bit underwhelming. The votes at 16 vs PR issue might get the juices flowing but all academic without a path to achieve either.

    At least a review on tuition fees acknowledges the problem but anyone can promise a review, and a graduate tax still involves the Government paying now and making arrangements to take payment from salary for decades, with all the current complexity of tracking employees and income left in place. Nothing there to suggest we’ll get a hearing from those attracted by Labour outflanking us.

    Brexit still a strange mix of insults for the other side (dormitory pillow fights) and claiming that we can lead and unite the opposition with grown-up politics, without any awareness of why those who agree with us on Brexit aren’t coming across or accepting the Lib Dems should lead in this way.

    The sections on inequality are the strongest for me and I hope Vince can continue to develop this thinking over the coming months. But as someone still smarting from how Tim Farron had to step down, and having taken a bit of a backseat over the summer, there’s not enough here to fire me up to give it my all again.

  • Steve Trevethan 20th Sep '17 - 1:32pm

    Do citizens, LD members, and party leaders get enough objective and accurate information on Venezuela upon which to base secure attitudes, comments and policies?
    [How objective and accurate was/is information on the conflict in Syria?]

  • OnceALibDem 20th Sep '17 - 1:58pm

    @LaurenceCox – a foreign policy approach that has, of course, never, not once, created any further problems and always worked out well 🙂

    Caron – with pretty good links to the leadership and as someone in charge of overseeing party straetgy – so presumably some strong sourcing for this – is spinning it as a downgrading of calls for PR.

  • Remind me again why 14-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

  • I’m fairly indifferent to votes at 16. I can see pros and cons, but mainly I think it’s a side issue and potential distraction when it comes to electoral reform. We need to keep the core of electoral reform (PR and a reformed House of Lords) as a talking point both for ourselves and the wider population.

    We don’t need to do it alone, nor should we. There are excellent groups like the Electoral Reform Society and Make Votes Matter that are doing a lot of the heavy lifting, and generating a lot of interest amongst those not affiliated to the LibDems or any party. It makes sense for a cross-party group to take the lead on this subject, but we can still provide support to help keep up the momentum and apply pressure on those within the Labour party who are undecided.

    There is a debate scheduled on the subject in the Commons for the end of October, and we should be lending our support to getting publicity for that and encouraging our members to contact their local MPs and apply pressure that way. Not that I’m naïve enough to think that one debate will change things, but it’s another step along the road and we can make sure that it’s a productive step.

  • Andrew McCaig 20th Sep '17 - 3:04pm


    I don’t see any difficulty with administering a graduate tax. You put a question on the tax return “are you a graduate of a British University?” Underneath you say, as now “a false declaration can lead to prosecution”. Most people are only too keen to advertise the fact that they are graduates, so the extent of fraud would be much less than the current failure to recover half the money. Because a true graduate tax would not be a loan, and would continue to be paid at some % on earnings throughout life, all this business of debt and interest rates and selling it off to third parties would be avoided. I would go for a retrospective graduate tax on all who benefited from the pre-fees era (like me and most MPs)

    The thing that would be complicated would be trying to compensate retrospectively for the steadily increasing (ie. non-uniform) unfairness of the current system. That could be a headache if attempted

  • paul barker 20th Sep '17 - 3:16pm

    Leaders speeches dont change Policy, they are about setting the tone & marking out a general direction. Some of the comments so far seem to be rather missing the point by picking up small elements & focusing on them to the exclusion of the big picture.
    I would guess that most of that small minority of Voters who have an opinion on Electoral Reform already know our position. Votes at 16 is probably not associated with us in most Voters minds & isnt obviously to our advantage.
    Anyone who thinks it should be 14 should look up all the helpful info on how to change Party Policy.

  • Peter Hirst 20th Sep '17 - 5:59pm

    Although he mentioned plenty of fellow MPs he could have also mentioned some people subject to human rights abuses around the world. Human rights watch mentions some each day. By identifying and supporting these people he can build upon his reputation as a person who cares about people whoever and wherever they are.

  • Richard Underhill 20th Sep '17 - 6:11pm

    OnceALibDem: Please also see Lord Carrington’s memoirs. The former Foreign Secretary used Jomo Kenyatta as an example of someone who was denounced as a terrorist but after independence appeared as Conservative, contrary to the views of Margaret Thatcher. She also denounced Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.
    It all depends on how they turn out after the first election.
    We were in Kenya in 1970, President Kenyatta’s photograph was everywhere as the leader of independence. He was not at that time considered a tribal leader for the Kikuyu, his appeal was wider than that.

  • Liberal democrats should never give up on proportional representation and the system of STV. Always the wise advice of a former leader to other parties …don’t talk invites into coalition governments without a commitment to fair votes.
    Nick Clegg went into coalition with the Tories already compromised with not PR but alternative vote, which the Tories didn’t even commit to support their compromise.

    Liberal democrats should have left the coalition on the issue that they do not compromise to work together in the interests of the people that elected that parliament (2010-).

  • Richard Underhill 20th Sep '17 - 6:18pm

    tpfkar 20th Sep ’17 – 1:00pm: Try votes at 16 on the doorstep whenever an adult voter is joined by someone aged between 0 and 18. Many a true word spoken in jest. Improved empathy with the parent, increased interest from the junior. My male peer group wanted to watch Bridget Bardot films, many females copied the hairstyle.

  • I wish Vince Cable all the best.

    He and the Liberal democrats are the ONLY hope for a united Britain as a nation state.

    What will the future hold?

  • @Ernest – Surely that is tongue-in-cheek?

    A united Britain when Vince is campaigning for a re-run of the referendum?
    A nation state when he wants hand over our sovereignty again when we are just in the process of getting it back?

  • Peter,

    Because Brexit has united us so well, it hasn’t and will continue to divide us. As it rolls on the divide becomes greater and only the Brexiteers can’t see it. To be fair it has now started to divide Brexiteers as they realise the Brexit they are likely to get isn’t their type of Brexit. They blame the Remainers but they’ve started to scape goat fellow Brexiteers as not being committed too the faith of Brexit. Truly they are turning into a cult, impervious to logic and consequences they hobble ever nearer to the cliff.

    Follow Tink they cry she will wave her magic wand and sun lit uplands will appear. This will not end well.

  • Neil Sandison 20th Sep '17 - 8:59pm

    I couldnt help thinking as i watched the speech of Roy Jenkins and Charles Kennedy finally we have a leader of a political party that treats the electorate like grown ups .He didnt talk down to the public he treats them as equals and he not making rash or implausable promises of jam tomorrow should he become prime minister .That quiet but assured tone will have appeal beyond the conference.

  • Peter, shame the sovereign has turned out to be Henry VIII !

  • Why would anyone think that votes at sixteen is a good idea? But if you do think giving children the vote is a good idea then why stop at sixteen? Why not fourteen, or ten, or six, or as soon as they can write an “X”?

  • The really interesting thing about the speech for me, has been its impact. At a coffee morning yesterday at an older people’s sheltered housing scheme I saw many of the residents cheered by it. They see Vince as an older, wiser head, with real life experience. He has gone down very well.
    Many of them voted Leave and Tory in the GE, so it is heartening to hear them discussing Leave in different terms. Many did not realise the impact it would have on young people, so it was good to hear them talk about it and begin to question what Brexit actually means.

  • Catherine Jane Crosland 21st Sep '17 - 8:22am

    I feel a bit worried about the idea of making votes for 16-year-olds a more major policy that calling for PR.
    It seems too much like a desperate attempt to win the youth vote – which will probably not actually work, as the youngest people who currently have the vote, 18-year-olds, are probably not particularly interested in giving the vote to 16-year-olds.
    It seems reasonable that the minimum voting age should be the age at which someone legally becomes an adult.
    It is often suggested that it is not right that someone should be able to get married and join the army, but not able to vote. And this is true, but it is true because the minimum age for marriage and for joining the army should by raised to 18.

  • Catherine Jane Crosland 21st Sep '17 - 8:29am

    Should *be* raised to 18 !

  • I watched the speech live on TV. I thought the content was right on the button. However, Vince’s delivery had all the appeal of a Wednesday night bingo session in a wet and windy seaside town in the winter months.

    I find it sad to say, but I just don’t see us engaging the electorate if our leader cannot inspire with his public rhetorical skills.

  • “I find it sad to say, but I just don’t see us engaging the electorate if our leader cannot inspire with his public rhetorical skills.”

    Think of all those Clegg and Farron speeches that were raved about as the best leader’s speeches ever. And made no difference. The leader gives 2 conference speeches a year and they vary rarely mean anything – but are given way more importance than they justify.

    Inspirational rhetoric skills Tim had in spades – more than any other Lib Dem MP of recent years. But he didn’t have anything else to back it up.

    Vince is not a quirky, dry wit, HIGNFY type of leader. He is a serious thoughtful politican – anyone think there is a gap out there for that sort of leader? That’s why the PPB was so wrong in tone in that it portrayed him as a quirky Uncle rather than a serious politician. The underlying message (if not slogan though it’s not a bad one) should be “Serious problems, Serious leader”. Not ‘Hey I’ve got a funny hat”

  • The problem with a Graduate Tax is that IT IS WRONG – Full Stop. There is no reason why a graduate on £74,000 should pay tax on his/her income at a higher rate than a professional footballer on £1,000,000; a Zac Goldsmith or a Lord Sugar; or even a Tim Farron on an MP’s £74,000.

    Our party, and particularly Nick and Vince, got us into a total mess on Tuition fees and sadly since then almost everyone in the party, but particularly those at the top have totally refused to face up to it. Denial of a problem is so much easier that admitting it was your fault. Truly for political animals, swallowing your personal pride and admitting you got it totally wrong is impossible. However, that is why we are at 5 to 8% in the polls and making no progress whatsoever.

    It is totally misguided to say we made a pledge seven years ago on tuition fees that we couldn’t meet. The pledge was very simple “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.” Every one of our MPs could do it, but so many chose not to, and that, coupled with four years of denial of the crisis we were in condemned our party to near oblivion in 2015.

    We are now in a position where we have no MPs in Wales, the West Country, and only one in the North and Midlands. However, the only option Vince chooses to mention is a graduate tax. If we choose that, and I fear we will, Vince will have just alienated another batch of voters for ever.

    Putting it simply, people in the 1960 and 70s voted for a system where they paid income tax at basic rates between 30% and 35% so that (amongst other things) children of average and poorer families did not have to pay for tuition fees and also got a grant towards living costs while at university. Now, with basic rate at 20%, no party apparently dares talk of more than a token 1% for education.

    Graduates of that era, know that their family paid, indeed many families paid but their children received no grant. Now, we consider a solution that will make them pay again.

  • The problem with a Graduate Tax is that IT IS WRONG – Full Stop

    It also seems like an odd way to try to increase support among graduates. Traditionally you don’t win people’s votes by saying you will raise the rates of taxes they pay.

  • Yeovil Yokel 21st Sep '17 - 1:16pm

    OnceALibDem – agree, Tim’s speeches and the PPB might make US feel good but I doubt they had, or will have, much appeal with the wider public. The country desperately needs a Wise Uncle/Auntie as Leader and Vince must come across to the electorate as being the person they want to turn to at a time of slow-burning crisis – otherwise it’s Carry On With the Usual Politics, and I might as well drown my sorrows in cider or push off to Eire.

    On a more general note I felt that it was a good speech, but sometimes Vince makes me wince when he attacks individuals on a personal level, e.g. the remark about Jacob Rees-Mogg launching a bid for the Tory leadership on ‘a dream ticket with his nanny’. I share his antipathy for JRM but this was not the occasion to say so. This petty remark doesn’t fit with the theme of his speech about ‘grown-up’ politics, and it won’t change the views of both the supporters and detractors of Marmite Rees-Mogg – it’s better to give him enough rope and let him hang himself. Churchill was notorious for his undermining personal insults directed at both allies and enemies, but they were made in private and when they subsequently came to light they served if anything to enhance his image as this flawed genius who saved his nation in its greatest hour of need. Vince will never be in that position, and he needs to be careful that his opponents don’t pick up remarks like that and use them against him (and us).

  • The party should be distinct on graduate fees. Take a different line. Tell the Universities to cut the dgree course to what 2 years, radically reduce the ridiculous holiday periods, make the staff work harder and start to operate like work places than citidels of high pay for the bosses. If many of us could go to work full time and get a reasonable degree in 3 years using evening classes and corresponce courses, then a full time student should do it easily in 2 years. More application and less boozing time. Cut the costs and the debts alround. University Education must one the most resistant to change institutions left in this country. it needs a radical overhaul from top to bottom. It should be forced upon them.

  • Neil Sandison 21st Sep '17 - 3:25pm

    Some interesting figures on sky news today on student drop out rates ranging from 40 to 67 % for some courses .Also interesting conversations from students who felt as beneficiaries of a university education they should make some contribution when they could afford it .housing , maintainance and interest rates seem to be the real problem .

  • @OnceaLibDem
    Thhe underlying message (if not slogan though it’s not a bad one) should be “Serious problems, Serious leader”. Not ‘Hey I’ve got a funny hat”

    Really sorry, but I missed the part where I advocated anything to do with comedy or funny hats. Rhetorical skills mean that you can engage with and inspire your audience, irrespective of how many times a year. I do not deny Vince is a serious politician; but he could and should come across to the public much better than he does at the moment. He should watch some Tedtalks to see how others inspire with their public speaking.

    As for Tim Farron, sorry, I could never detect any inspirational rhetoric; and, based on our general election results, the electorate agreed.

  • John Littler 21st Sep '17 - 8:31pm

    Apparently, Vince is currently top of the pops in Ipsos Mori in net popularity ratings of the 3 leaders with May well behind in 3rd.

    If Vince carries on with this commanding of the media, anything is possible and it was anyway after brexit.

  • I don’t remember seeing any clips on any of the news programmes I watched. Therefore for the general public he didn’t achieve any of Caron’s objectives for this conference. He didn’t really address methods to reduce economic inequality.

    I agree with many of the previous comments, reducing the voting age to 16 is not going to be a vote winner, and because young people have until the last general election been the group least likely to vote, increasing their number might just reduce turnout.

    We really should make reform of local government a red line for any future coalition including the abolition of elected Mayors and the cabinet system. We should not be supporting the idea that the major role for councillors is as a ward or division leader and not a decision making. As we want cooperative national government we should ensure it exists at the local level where with STV political parties have to work together where each councillor is equal and have to make decisions together for the local area as they did in the old committee system.

    Vince seems to accept that student loans / graduate debt is wrong and his review under David Howarth may produce options for conference to debate. Hopefully the leadership will support a graduate tax. I expect paying for the whole of university education from general tax would be a step too far for the leadership. Having a graduate tax as party policy will mean we can stop defending the current system, which should help us and will be a policy which is defendable.

  • Vince said, “Europe, of course, needs reform” but said nothing about what sort of reform he wants. I suggest we should call for less conformity within the EU and a 27 speed EU (at least two countries have to agree, hence 27 not 28). An EU where each country decides which parts it signs up to, not a one size fits all (or even two sizes).

    Does Vince want to increase the deficit with a massive programme of public investment? He said, “This country needs a massive injection of public investment. … in the railway network … and in broadband, and in housing. Never in British economic history has it been cheaper for a bold, active government to borrow for productive investment”.

    Perhaps he is nearly ready to take the next step and advocate the government being the employer of last resort, offering flexible employment or meaningful free training for anyone not in work who wants it.

    It is good that Vince now he is no longer in government supports Councils being able to borrow to build houses. A shame he didn’t support this while in government.

  • A good speech by vince with the important themes raised, could’ve done with a bit more inspiration but not be all and end all . I thought PPB whilst a bit frivolous did make important points and whether like it or not need some entertainment to engage younger types. Not one of those who think Lib Dems sold out in coalition with Conservatives though created difficulties could’ve played better hand,definitely think student fees need revising though and agree with @theakes that some courses could be radically altered. Whilst fully on board with EU stance won’t be sufficient by itself and need to make an impact on a few key issues with some new ideas. Recent poll suggested that currently only 27% hard remainers and only around half would currently support or would consider our party. Talk of alternative PM hardly credible though need to make our pitch and become stronger force, thought Miranda Green made good point about needing to streamline processes for policy to make impact.

    Whilst PR/House of Lords reform should be part of focus to achieve better outcomes in democratic process generally won’t get pulses raising, tackling opportunity, inequalities fairness and how relevant Liberalism is in real life got to be key. Getting attention in main media (outside of shows political junkies watch) still a challenge.

  • Richard Underhill 2nd Oct '17 - 10:51pm

    Votes at 16 and Fair Votes (STV) are part of a package of constitutional reform.

    At the Tory conference today 2 Tory MPs said that Boris Johnson should be sacked, on the record on Channel 4 News. His successor as MP for Henley also commented.

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 ...?


Recent Comments

  • Robin Stafford
    From Haaretz vis JFJFP: So it’s the Palestinians’ fault fo...
  • Nonconformistradical
    Re. Jenny Barnes 22nd Jul '24 - 5:06pm I don't think any of these conflicts can even start to be resolved without the key participants coming to realise that...
  • Jenny Barnes
    There are parallels between the Israel/Palestine conflict and the sectarian violence that used to happen in Northern Ireland. That in NI was defused and dimin...
  • Robin Stafford
    Thank you Jenny and David. It is that dehumanising racism (and colonialist attitude) that explains the brutality that the Jewish population of Israel has inflic...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Joe, I didn't say Lincoln was "a man of the left". Just that he was an example of the Republican party not always being of the reactionary right, especiall...