The Liberal Democrats have always been a broad church. From the Ashdown-Kennedy revival to 2010, we had seats in traditional rural areas like Devon and Cornwall, as well as university towns and other more urban areas. We welcomed members too with a wide range of backgrounds and values. This followed the tradition of tolerance in the Liberal party from 1859, and with the principle of freedom of conscience championed by our constitution.
But is our broad church weakening?
In 2010, we lost many of these rural seats, and we’ve struggled to recover them following the 2016 Brexit Referendum.
Some in the party argue that, to make an impact, we should stop appealing to a broad coalition. We should make uncompromising statements, however much it alienates some existing voters and members. That we could write off old areas of strength, and instead pursue less traditional seats, such as affluent metropolitan constituencies and university towns.
When there is a real risk of a Tory hegemony, I think this is a terrible mistake. It would gift the Tories places where only we can beat the Tories. And instead shift our fight to where we are competing with Labour.
It’s not just in our campaigning that we’ve moved away from this broad church tradition. In recent years, I keep meeting members who are afraid they will be pilloried if they say what they really think. And I meet other members who content that this is the case.
I think we should return to the broad church of the Ashdown and Kennedy years. If we want majorities in traditional rural seats, we’ll need to attract the support of voters who have opinions we dislike. And, if we’re consistent, we’ll also have to welcome members whose opinions we dislike.
This goes right to the heart of what kind of party we are. What are the limits to the kind of members we want to welcome?
I think we should trust in the good sense of the wider membership. I wouldn’t want someone like Daniel Hannan as a member, a Libertarian who advised the USA to stick with its pre-Obama healthcare system, but I don’t see the need to exclude them. If our membership is as I trust it is, they would get nowhere, and would soon depart for a more rightwing home.
Those who engage in extreme abuse should be excluded – assuming we follow due process with clear definitions of what is unacceptable. But let’s not take this too far. All of us, young and old, have said things in clumsy ways. We’ve probably all, at some point, held opinions we now know were wrong. If, in a few years, we regret some of the things we are saying and thinking today, it shows we are learning. So if we don’t want to be judged by our own mistakes, let’s be slower to judge others.
After all, tolerance is not some peripheral value that we should be able to abandon. It’s been a core part of our tradition since the party was formed and for a hundred years before.
* George Kendall is the acting chair of the Social Democrat Group. He writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
110 Comments
This all seems very sensible. Though the picture implies we don’t want anyone over about 35 !
You don’t beat the tories by cosying up to the tories. Cosying up to the tories merely reminds tory voters of why they vote tory. THAT is why we have failed to recapture West country seats, not because we haven;t cosied up to the tories enough.
We need to be an ALTERNATIVE to them, not a clone of them.
(lest people think my comment above is leaping at things that are not being said: show me a time when “we should be nicer to people whose opinions we disagree with” meant the person saying it thinks we should move towards being more left wing? I bet you a tenner you can’t find one)
” In recent years, I keep meeting members who are afraid they will be pilloried if they say what they really think.”
But what do they “really think”? Are you talking about people who have a different economic view from others, or people who are racist or bigoted? Because those are very different things, and in the case of the latter this isn’t a party for people who think the basic rights of others (or even their right to exist) should be up for debate, so it’s entirely right they should face consequences for having opinions that aren’t compatible with membership of a liberal political party.
We need to be very firmly on the radical centre left which is where we were for most of our history. The same came also be said of our predecessor parties.
As Jennie states when we tack to the right we lose big time. The likes of Lloyd George, David Owen and Nick Clegg all made that mistake.
In contrast we do best when we are at our most radical just look at 2005 when we won 63 seats in parliament!
As the Meerkats say simples!
Simon McGrath – “This all seems very sensible. Though the picture implies we don’t want anyone over about 35 !”
As an “older” member who will have been in the party 40 years this year, I had to smile when I read your comment. The emphasis on youth and looks is something widespread in our society and the Liberal Democrats are no exception.
During the last General Election and in most recent elections, there was lot of emphasis on involving younger voters, TV debates with only young members of the audience etc. and not much specifically aimed at older voters.
We should not forget that the over 55s are not only a large and growing group of people, they have strong views on many issues and engage in the debate, they vote more often than young people, and many have the time and energy to campaign and stand for election.
While we are busy chasing the young, ethnic minorities and many other target groups we believe might join or support the Lib-Dems. Don’t forget those who have simply been around a longer time.
So I’m looking at our members in the Lords, such as Lord Dholakia, Lord Hussain, and Baroness Benjamin, and the president of my own regional party, and the MEP we sent to Europe from Yorkshire, and considering the implication of John Barrett’s comment that being of an ethnic minority is somehow in a different category from having been around for a long time…
I am a floating voter. That does not mean that I cannot make up my mind or that I don’t know which party should get my vote. On the contrary, I study the issues and the policies very carefully and I vote for the party that will deliver the best result for our nation. I do not slavishly give allegiance to any party. Parties change, just look at the Blair to Corbyn transformation and perhaps the Cameron to Johnson change that is under way now. Apart from fanatical supporters, most of the electorate can be floating voters as demonstrate just four months ago.
I have voted Lib Dem, but not recently. Nothing could persuade me to vote for the political wing of Momentum, so I regard LD as the preferred party of opposition but the current direction of travel is towards obscurity. I have participated on this site for years so I am in some ways a regular. However, it is obvious that I am an outsider as some commenters make clear from time to time.
The current post strikes at the heart of a dilemma for this party. As an outsider I have reached many conclusions about the party but I hesitate to list them here. Interestingly, I already see evidence for some emerge in the few comments that have appeared so far.
“I wouldn’t want someone like Daniel Hannan as a member, a Libertarian who advised the USA to stick with its pre-Obama healthcare system, but I don’t see the need to exclude them.”
This may have been an intended example but Dan Hannan had a partner in crime running a strongly anti-NHS ideology who was a Lib Dem member and came relatively close to getting elected as LIberal Youth chair.
The LIb Dems are a political party. They have an ideology. And it’s not unreasonable to not have people who don’t share that as members. I’m not sure the party is currently that good a fit for my personal beliefs in the way it once was (that may be a case of it’s not you it’s me)
Which is not to say we couldn’t make common cause with people where there is agreement on particular issues – Ken Clarke on Europe, Caroline Lucas on the environment, even NIgel Farage on electoral reform. But none of those should be welcomed as members.
Too much in the Brexit debate the party took in ‘fellow travellers’ from the other parties just because they were also anti-Brexit. The example of Rachel Johnson (once excitedly talked of as a target seat candidate despite some clear evidence of not very liberal views) being one who quickly moved on. Similarly Philip Lee (who got preferential treatment with complaints about him being quietly shelved/ignored)
Bath, Westmorland and Lonsdale, Oxford West and Abingdon, Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton, St Albans, Richmond Park.
Besides these being Lib Dem held English seats, what do you notice?
I haven’t checked but I’d say they’d all be areas of well above average wealth. So the conclusion has to be that, at least in England, your current policies are only appealing to the well-to-do.
Thanks for the comments guys.
With one or two comments, I’m unsure what you meant. Can I clarify with a question?
Do you think we should be polite and respectful to people we disagree with, avoid saying things that will upset them, and use reason coupled with kindness to persuade them? Or do you think intimidating them into silence is a good option?
I hope you agree with politeness, reason, kindness and avoiding intimidation. Maybe I’ve misunderstood your replies, but I wasn’t clear what you meant.
@Nick Barlow
The people I’m talking have not a hint of racism about them. They are kind, compassionate, polite, self-reflective and thoughtful. As for being bigots, quite the opposite. In fact, far from being wedded to one policy or another, sometimes it’s fear that their very uncertainty about a policy will make them a target.
Some of them have explained why they keep quiet. It’s because they fear they will have abusive words thrown at them, and have their reputations misrepresented elsewhere.
@jennie
Do you think Corbyn was making a move to the right when he said: “There should be no personal hostility and nobody should feel intimidated at any time.” If not, please donate my £10 to https://www.msf.org.uk/.
See https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/77379/jeremy-corbyn-tells-supporters-behave-civility-new
@simon mcgrath @john barrett
I’m grateful to the LibDemVoice team for adding brightness to the article with the graphic. I’m sure they didn’t mean to imply the party doesn’t want older people.
@David Warren
I’m confused by your reply. Far from suggesting we move away from what the party was like in 2005, I said the opposite. I explicitly said we should not write off old areas of strength that we held during the Kennedy years.
Its not so much about being a broad church but becoming a refreshed church .Some members appear locked in the 1980s others still hanker after those old left /right divisions .We need to move on ,we need to have our own slant based on Social Liberal /Democratic values . Those values are needed more than ever as we live up to the climate challenge we all face ,where prime minsters and presidents act ike 17th century kings who believe they are above the law and suspend elected parliaments to justify draconian policy decisions to get their own way. we need to embrace new circular economics to reduce waste and expand the life of dwindling resources .We cn do it but we do not saying who we do not like but by doing more to encourage to our refreshed brand of politics.
Unfortunately, rural voters have shifted rightwards over the last 10 years. If we are to become a centre-left radical progressive party, we have no choice but to abandon rural seats. We should also stop pursue right-wing Remainer votes, and the end of Brexit means that they are no longer needed.
“If we want majorities in traditional rural seats, we’ll need to attract the support of voters who have opinions we dislike. And, if we’re consistent, we’ll also have to welcome members whose opinions we dislike.” – not if they are racists and bigots. There must be a deal-breaker.
We have to take a stand on some things or no one will have a reason to vote for us. We can’t take a stand on all things or everyone will have a reason to vote against us.
In the last election we took a stand on one issue (brexit) and went meh on everything else (at least that’s how it looked from outside). This strategy was viable for one election, that election has now passed.
Fundamentally, we need to have principles, fight for them and be hated by those who don’t share them. Being politically successful don’t require being universally liked. See Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair (who apparently still divides the Labour party 10 years on).
If we don’t we will be rightly accused of being a spineless ball of vagueness and no one will vote for us.
Unfortunately, rural voters have shifted a lot to the right over the last 10 years, so if we want to become a centre-left progressive party, we have to ditch them from our coalition, except for maybe the South West where there are still rural leftists.
The party must stop chasing after right-wing Remainer votes, with the end of Brexit, we no longer need them. Their presence will only serve to dilute our platform and make it more incoherent.
The problem with calls for “broad churches” and “tolerance” is that they run into Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance ( see https://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-rediscovery-of-karl-popper-and-his.html ) which people in this party really should be more aware of than they claim to be.
Most of the calls to “welcome members whose opinions we dislike” generally seem to only call to welcome a certain type of “opinion we dislike” — the kind that sees some races, or nationalities, or sexualities, or gender identities, as less human than others.
Oddly, those calling for those opinions to be welcomed never seem to welcome those with opinions *they* dislike — opinions like “I am human”, “my right to exist should not be a matter of debate”, and “I don’t want to share a party with people who want to remove my human rights”.
This is especially odd since, at the moment, people with the first kind of opinion seem to be welcome in this party and in all other parties, while people with the second kind of opinion seem to be allowed in ours on condition that they don’t express those opinions too vociferously and upset the other lot.
It’s very odd, if, you know, this is about tolerance and openness and all that stuff…
Should it bother us if we alienate racists, misogynists, bigots and climate change deniers? Can we not be proudly intolerant of intolerance? What becomes embarrassing is if we find someone with one or more of these characteristics standing as a candidate.
Perhaps the issue George is skirting around is centrism. This ill defined, yet pervasive idea is understandably unpopular with most activists because it is poorly defined. Worse it invites what I see as a key Lib Dem defect, a tendency to allow ourselves to be defined by our most implacable opponents. Nonetheless, over the last year we have welcomed renegades from Labour and Conservatives. In some cases they have enriched the party and in the cases of Sam Gyimah and Chuka Umunna brought a level of professional competence and leadership that are sorely missed.
Are we really at risk of becoming a narrow special interest sect? George implies this could be the case, but does not provide much evidence. Over the last year we have also seen a large increase in membership; I would have thought that our immediate task is to retain and consolidate our membership. Of course to be a serious political party, we have to be inclusive (‘a broad church’ I suppose), but we also have to project a clear Liberal identity; we need leaders who are prepared to explain and articulate the principles of Liberalism.
“The party must stop chasing after right-wing Remainer votes, with the end of Brexit, we no longer need them.”
If we want to win some more seats, we do need their votes. We will get them by positioning ourselves to those people as the obvious alternative to the Tories once they’re sick and tired of the Tory government.
Or we could just chase after the same pool of voters as Labour, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid. With the Tories on 50% in the polls that obviously won’t deliver any success but at least people like Jennie above won’t have to sully themselves by talking to people who don’t agree with them, eh?
There is a trend in which groups identify themselves with standards and values or beliefs which become almost sacred in their importance. Dissenters and non-believers are cast out as though in league with the devil. Such groups are frequently encountered on the internet and are common subject matter for opinion writers who either praise the groups or condemn them. The ideology becomes all important and it becomes the prism through which everything else is viewed.
There are parts of this party which exhibit some of these group characteristics. Liberal values and ideology become paramount. Those who oppose do not belong.
If this is what the party wants there is nothing wrong with that. Is it what the voters want? A floating voter is open to possibilities but strongly held ideological beliefs are usually a step too far, certainly in the introductory phase. Such groups tend to drive out or lose those who cannot share the depth of belief and therefore a typical characteristic is steady decline in membership and influence.
OK, I hold my hands up. I sourced the image at the top of the post. I realised that no-one in the drawing was representing my hair colour (white) and wrinkles, but, hey, it wasn’t that bad. I do like to add an image to posts but finding an appropriate one in the time available is not always possible.
Hint – if you send us a post do see if you have a suitable image that we can use. But it must be copyright free or provided with accreditation.
The key thing here is to have a coherent philosophical underpinning – not in any overt way, but a general sense of “this is what the party stands for”. This is easy to do for our competitors.
Labour? The working class (not withstanding its decline and the separate debate about this)
Tories? The well-to-do and aspirant (not withstanding its recent abandonment of pro-business attitudes over Europe)
Nationalist? Whoever lives in those nations.
We have recently seen a coalescence around State Intervention and an abandonment of internationalism from Labour and Conservatives. This leaves a huge hole in British politics for an internationalist, pro-business, pro-market party. It also shows us that an overt reliance on State intervention is competing in a crowded and well-resourced market.
Fortunately the gap that we now see squares nicely with long-standing Liberal tradition which, leavened with our Social conscience, leaves us well placed to prosper, should we choose to.
TLDR – pro-business, pro-market, pro-internationalist, social conscience.
I feel like the people saying “but we need to be a broad church!” frequently appear to be shadow-boxing, speaking as one of the people they often assume themselves to be arguing against. I think just about everyone ought to be able to agree that if a church is infinitely broad, it becomes meaningless – there’s no point in having a political party if you don’t have some kind of vision for how you want to run the country, and vision requires values with which not all voters agree. This shouldn’t be a controversial statement.
However, that absolutely doesn’t require us to “give up” on particular groups or areas or demographics of voters, it rather challenges us to campaign effectively in those areas in line with our values. I’m from a deep Conservative rural seat myself, and I can absolutely say that we will never win the areas I grew up in if we hedge and avoid saying what we think. The problem that nobody feels they know what we stand for is far bigger for us than anyone percieving us as intolerant or shutting their views out, a complaint that I hear inside far more than outside Lib Dem circles.
We have become a status quo party, and when you look at our seats, as Peter says above, they’re now all seats where (many of) the residents have done very nicely out of the status quo.
Anyone who has been an elected politician knows that you always have half an eye on the interests of your constituents. So the current parliamentary makeup makes it even more difficult for us to strike out and adopt some radical policies.
The 2017 and 2019 elections were marked in that both Labour and Tories were seeking to change things whereas we wanted them to say the same (I am sure it says different in the footnotes of some policy committee document, but not so as any public will have noticed).
The biggest challenge the party faces is vision, or lack of one.
@Peter Martin “I haven’t checked but I’d say they’d all be areas of well above average wealth. So the conclusion has to be that, at least in England, your current policies are only appealing to the well-to-do.”
I’ve linked to this before, and I haven’t seen an update since the election, but in the context of your comment this article and its graphics are quite illuminating: http://www.statsmapsnpix.com/2019/11/a-deprivation-by-constituency-chart.html
Know your customer. The party’s customer is the electorate. What does the customer want?
Now you may choose not to participate in every market sector or satisfy every perceived customer demand. You may wish to steer customers this way and that. But at the end of the day, if you wish to expand your market share you must attract new customers.
Every policy is judged against the LibDem values. The party should also consider what the customers will think of it and whether they can get a more attractive offer elsewhere.
On Peter Martin’s comment re the six big LD wins in England, the LD took almost equal percentage of votes from Con and Lab from 3 of them and double from Labour in St. Albans and more than double from Con in Bath and Twickenham. I note that only in Bath and Kingston did the Labour vote exceed 10%. It seems to follow that if the Labour vote can be forced down to below 8% and inroads made to the Tory vote , those seats where there is a second placed LD stand a real chance in 2024 where the Con maj was under 5000. There are only 13 in England. The Lab vote in these constituencies exceeded 8%: Carshalton; Cambridgeshire S; Cheadle;Cities of London and W; Guildford; Hazel Grove; Wimbledon. I suggest that in the others the Lab vote has been already squeezed to squeaking point.
Then there are 9 further seats in England where the Con Maj was over 5000 but less than 10000 where the Lab vote shd be squeezable. Only in Wells (Con Maj 9991) did Lab poll less than 8%: in the others the Lab vote shd be squeezable as only in Finchley; Hichin and Woking did Labour poll more than 15%. But only in Finchley on the 2019 figs does the LD chance look good against a Con vote of under the LD plus Lab vote, altho there are some close-ish ones
As for the other seats which might on a very good night in 2024 go LD: the Con 14% and the Lab 9% wants squeezing for Dunbartonshire E to return; Likewise The Con 26% in Sheffield Hallam; the 16% in Cambridge; and the 17% (only 6% Lab) in Ross. But even squeezed the LD vote is still well short on the 2019 figs. for the last two.
“The Liberal Democrats have always been a broad church … I think we should return to the broad church of the Ashdown and Kennedy years.”
I don’t know if this is contentious or merely stating the obvious, but might it simply be the case that being a party of opposition made it easy to be all things to all people? The party could argue against anything that Labour or Conservatives (or SNP?) put forward and imply that there was a more sensible / moderate / centrist alternative without emphasising the details in case it divided support. We could all have our own version of the Lib Dems with which we identified, whether that was a non-socialist party of the left or a non-nasty party of the right. In a similar vein, Lib Dems could talk about the need for house-building on a national scale while courting NIMBY votes by opposing it on a local scale.
Being in Coalition Government forced Lib Dems to make and implement real policy decisions that would always be a bit too much to the right (or not enough) for some people. The way this was done gave the party an apparent identity which some did not like, and this has since been followed by confusion over whether or not Lib Dems own or disown things for which senior party figures were responsible in Government.
Being a “broad church” does not sound like the right goal in and of itself. Sticking with the analogy, maybe the party first needs to decide and communicate more clearly the tenets of faith for its religion and then allow a broad church to grow around that. From the outside, despite a lot of consensus on social liberalism, the sticking point seems to be the issue of economic liberalism (or liberalism vs. Liberalism or freedom from vs. freedom to, I don’t really know the vocabulary).
@ Peter Watson,
Thanks for that link.
Another parameter to look at is social class. Perhaps surprisingly, both Labour and Tories receive similar levels of support from all social classes.
Whereas Lib Dem support decreases with decreasing social and economic status. It’s twice as high in AB groups than in DE groups.
See about a third of the way down the page on:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
The very reason I agree with George is the same as why I do not always with some. He welcomes. Others do not all do this.
So we presume that means he does so of bigots, and racists and needs a lecture on Popper or values?!
So we get the dig at “centrists,” the love for “markets,” hatred of the “state,” from each or different “wings.”
A broad church needs us not to welcome bigots or racists.
I like ” centrists,” markets and the “state.” I do not like them all at the same moment or all topics at the same point.
You can for example detest the immigration policy that says spouses can only come here to settle,if well off, financially, while agreeing that freedom of movement should only mean those without a connection can only come here permanently, if to do a needed job. It was the immigration policy until New Labour and the Coalition and what has followed.
You could have a state that behaved like China in a crisis like Covid 19, but not ever otherwise. It is Italy now.
I am not a ember of a cult or a fringe group. I am of a political party.
I agree with Andrew or James on universal basic income. I agree with Jennie on universal basic instinct!
I agree with TCO on much but not on the economy on much of the points he makes.
I agree with George on this article and welcome colleagues to see mine today…
Here are some statements that really ought to be uncontroversial for Liberals to sign up to:
“Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles.”
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”
“Trans Women are Women. Trans Men are Men. Non-binary people are non-binary. All should be respected.”
“no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”
We are a Liberal party, and that means we want society as a whole to become more free and fair to everyone. Doing that means standing up for our Liberal values, and from time to time confronting robustly – politely but firmly – those who do not share them.
As James Bailey says, we are a political party and we need to stand for something, or what’s the point. Our values need to be clear and open.
And as Andrew Hickey pointed out above, it’s a paradox of tolerance that we must be intolerant of the intolerant, or tolerance is destroyed.
So, to adapt a saying quoted by Carl Sagan, “Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but not so open that your brains fall out.”
We should be tolerant, but not so tolerant that our party ceases to mean anything.
The purpose of politics in a democracy is to provide the voters with a broad range of choices, and to make the case for our position within that range, not to become so broad as to leave the public with no real choices at all.
Our specific purpose, then, is to set out the case for Liberal Values.
We should be using our voice to defend people from bullying.
Migrants, Jews, Muslims and Trans people are all, currently, targets for an aggressive culture war being conducted by a right-wing that is well funded and widely supported in the press and across social media.
We should firmly reject any suggestion that the rights, sometimes even the existence, of people in these groups are ever “up for debate”. If you think it’s just a question for debate, that’s a clear sign that you are the one with the privilege in that position.
It’s a tragedy that the culture war has sometimes persuaded people in one group that they should be against another.
As an example, I’m a gay man, and I’ve seen too often intolerance and erasure towards bisexual members of the LGBT+ community.
It’s classic divide and conquer.
We should be making a strong case that human rights should never be set in competition with each other. Freedom and fairness have to be for everyone.
So working class rights and migrant rights should go forward together, women’s rights for cis and trans should go forward together. European rights and British rights should be totally defended as one and the same.
George:
“Do you think we should be polite and respectful to people we disagree with, avoid saying things that will upset them, and use reason coupled with kindness to persuade them?”
As with my previous answer, it depends who they are and what we disagree on. It’s a lot easier to use reason and kindness if we’re disagreeing on policy issues, than if they’re arguing that me, my friends or anyone shouldn’t have some fundamental rights. There are far too many racists and bigots around who demand you debate them, and to do so is to pretend that there is some sort of debate to be had with people who want to fundamentally wreck the lives of people they don’t like. (See Andrew Hickey’s comment about the paradox of tolerance above, and indeed the work of the many, many people who understand that liberalism didn’t end with JS Mill)
“Or do you think intimidating them into silence is a good option?”
That’s a straw man dichotomy you’ve created there – just because I refuse to debate with a racist, a transphobe, a flat earther or a climate change denier in a way that allows them to pretend that their nonsense beliefs are somehow credible and worthy of being debated, it does not mean I’m “intimidating them into silence”. It means I’m not wasting my time by pretending that it’s possible to have a reasoned debate with them, and in the context of this post, I’m not going to pretend that it’s possible to have a liberal political party that includes them as a member.
“The people I’m talking have not a hint of racism about them. They are kind, compassionate, polite, self-reflective and thoughtful. As for being bigots, quite the opposite. In fact, far from being wedded to one policy or another, sometimes it’s fear that their very uncertainty about a policy will make them a target.
Some of them have explained why they keep quiet. It’s because they fear they will have abusive words thrown at them, and have their reputations misrepresented elsewhere.”
Sorry, all this is so vague as to be meaningless – who are these people, what are the beliefs they think aren’t being respected? What are they uncertain about? At the moment, you appear to be arguing on behalf of something so nebulous I can’t understand what your point is.
I knew and worked with Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy. I think it would come as a surprise to both of them that they were being hailed as examples of people who stood for nothing at all and who would be happy to welcome bigots into our party.
I joined the Liberal Democrats immediately after the merger, and remember the early days of the party as being very difficult not because we were insufficiently indistinct.
The first time I felt a real surge of pride in the party I’d joined, and the first time other Lib Dems I was starting to meet felt there was something from the Leadership to be really enthusiastic about, the point at which we started turning around our fortunes and rising from *% in the polls was when in 1989 Paddy Ashdown took a clear lead in calling for the rights of Hong Kong citizens to be honoured. The Conservative Government was only for letting in the richest, on paying a large fee; the Labour Party of course condemned this – but only as cover for voting with Norman Tebbit’s far-right Tory MPs’ racist rebellion to stop *any* Hong Kong citizens being given rights. The Lib Dems were pounded for being extreme, but grew by getting off our knees and doing the right thing.
I remember the 1992 election, where Paddy Ashdown was attacked for being an extremist for supporting green taxes and what were then called gay rights, and stood his ground because it was right and we believed it, even when polling among even our own voters said, ‘Oh, I dunno, though’, but history proved us right.
I remember Charles Kennedy standing up for Europe when New Labour were hiding and the Tories were attacking and no-one else had the courage to lead. I remember Charles Kennedy making a brave speech in April 2000, during a hard-fought by-election campaign where the Liberal Democrats were striving to take Romsey, one of the safest Conservative seats in the country. The Liberal Democrat campaign could have played down our Liberalism, played it safe, stuck to ‘popular’ issues and only challenged the Tories where they were perceived as electorally ‘weak’. Instead, Charles Kennedy took the huge risk of facing down the Conservatives’ asylum policy, in a speech *in Romsey*, where conventional wisdom was that saying the right thing would lose us the seat, and doubling down on that by writing just after:
“The voters of Romsey were not beguiled by William Hague’s personal brand of politics – those based on fear and division. His is the Britain of the twitching curtain and the locked door, where every refugee is an economic migrant, every gay man a pervert waiting to prey on your children and every creak in the floorboards an intruder in your home. By concentrating on the negative, and pandering to the small-minded, he insulted the electorate.”
I remember marching with Charles Kennedy against the Iraq War – when Liberal Democrats were screamed at as traitors by both the other main parties and plummeted in the polls before everyone decided, again, that we were right after all.
You can call for the Liberal Democrats to become a hollowed-out husk, a moral vacuum, a nothingburger of a party that welcomes any opinion and says any prejudice is absolutely fine.
But how DARE you disgrace the memories of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy to do it.
There are numerous things we need to consider
Firstly, what is our party for? What purpose do we wish to serve in the UK and at the next election
Secondly, how have we got to the place where sone subjects cannot be debated at all, and is this helpful to a party that aspires to bd in a position of power
Thirdly, how can we ensure our governance structures and processes are not open to abuse by a tiny minority of the party, and how can we ensure the systems and processes we have in place a structurally strong enough not to allow this.
If we are unable to resolve these issues positively it seems we are setting up the circumstances for party damage further down the line.
Our constitution is very clear, we are set up for all groups men and women and we must ensure that all groups abd voices are equally heard.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution
@Peter Watson “maybe the party first needs to decide and communicate more clearly the tenets of faith for its religion and then allow a broad church to grow around that. From the outside, despite a lot of consensus on social liberalism, the sticking point seems to be the issue of economic liberalism”
Agreed, I think this is bang on. Economic liberalism has always been a key part of our identity but some people have a problem with it, perhaps understanding it to favour one or other economic model. To me it’s always been simply about believing that open markets and open trade are broadly better than closed markets, protectionism etc.
I don’t think our disagreements over economic models, or the balance say between the emphasis on social and economic liberalism, negate our core beliefs in openness and standing up for freedom. I suggest we don’t fall into the trap of defining our faith too narrowly or we end up putting people off that might otherwise consider us.
Being a broad church – around our core, core beliefs in freedom and openness – is IMO hugely important if we’re to challenge for power in any way shape or form. We should not be insisting on some purity test for acceptance. Of course someone who is clearly opposed to our values (overt racists say) should not be welcome. But sadly we’ve become too purist on our approach in recent years. To take an obvious example, can someone who is Euro-sceptic be a Lib Dem? Speaking as an uber-pro European my answer is yes of course, if they can broadly justify their belief in broadly liberal terms.
Well said, Alex Wilcock. Nothing wishy washy about either of those two…… unlike what happened later. Both proper Liberals….. again, unlike what happened later.
This is not a political party.
It is a rights movement.
It has been often, correctly, said that all successful political parties (especially under First Past the Post) are coalitions. Reading this thread, it appears to me that many commenters don’t share this aspiration for the Liberal Democrats.
@Nick Barlow
Hi Nick,
I’m talking about party members, not the Nazis referred to in that Popper diagram. Some are long-standing members, who were very active in the party in the Ashdown and Kennedy years.
You ask for a specific example. The people I’m thinking about talked in private about a wide range of policy areas, and I’m not going to break those confidences, but I’ll give one general example.
After the Referendum, some members of the party thought, having lost the Referendum, that we should try to get an Single Market based compromise. I disagreed, I thought a further referendum was the better strategy. I tried to use politeness and reason to persuade them.
Sadly, not all my fellow pro-europeans have been respectful in the way they disagreed. As a result, some of these people have become demoralised, even left active involvement in the party. I think this is deeply regrettable.
I’ve been active since 1981. I don’t recall this happening to the same extent in the past, including in the Ashdown and Kennedy years.
@Alex Wilcock
Hi Alex,
When you talked about someone suggesting that we become a party that stood for nothing, I wondered who you were talking about. If you meant my piece, is it possible you’ve misunderstood it?
I talked about two interconnected things:
– That we should reach out to regions where Kennedy and Ashdown successfully got LibDem MPs elected, but which have been lost since. This includes rural areas like in the SW. @Thomas thinks rural voters have fundamentally changed since, I doubt that. I just think we’ve failed to connect with them.
– And that, I fear we’ve become a little less tolerant of differences in the party than we used to. My article is a suggestion that we try to be more tolerant.
Other than the above, I’ve not talked about the party’s vision. That’s a big and very difficult question for another time.
Personally, I would like us to strongly attack damaging and unjust policies like the ongoing benefits cuts, which continue to mean that while the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. Maybe I’ll write a piece about that so we can debate it later.
Paddy and Charles were indeed very radical at times, but would you not agree that at other times they carefully calibrated their pitches to appeal to a broad range of public opinion?
There were many generous tributes after Charles death, the words “gentle” and “polite” kept coming up, including from his bitterest opponents. You knew Charles personally, I did not. But from what I heard and saw of him, those tributes were justified. I think we should try to be a little more like Charles in that respect, especially with fellow party members.
Similarly, I think we should follow the advice of Sal Brinton, that while engaging in rigorous debate, we should play the ball not the person, especially when it comes to fellow party members.
@George Kendall “I fear we’ve become a little less tolerant of differences in the party than we used to.”
I agree, and comments by self-appointed guardians of (their narrow version of) Liberalism such as “Both proper Liberals….. again, unlike what happened later” pour petrol on the fire.
George, I have not misunderstood a word, but I think you have utterly misunderstood our party.
I made it very clear (and indeed directly quoted Charles in doing so) that one of the things that most distinguished Paddy and Charles was that they stood up for minorities. No ifs, no buts, no affecting to take offence and tone-policing as cover for being horrible to minorities. If you think that standing up for gay rights when people like me were illegal was carefully calibrated and popular, I must generously take you at your word, take a deep breath and believe you when you say you’ve been around since 1981 and not born yesterday.
This is something that has been at our party’s core, and its predecessors’, not just in Paddy’s and Charles’ days but for hundreds of years. From Lord John Russell passing a bill to allow Jews to sit in Parliament to Jo Swinson calling out Labour antisemitism, from Gladstone enabling atheists to affirm to Jo Swinson standing up for cis and trans women alike, Liberals have always stood up for unpopular minorities and always been attacked for it. It’s what we do. I’m disturbed that some believe we should drop our soul and our history and cater to bigots instead.
Reaching out to constituencies is not the same as thinking we can get people who absolutely disagree with us to vote for us. Or, from a purely electoral standpoint: the Brexit Party’s principle aim is to be horrible to people who aren’t like them. May and then Johnson have driven the Conservative Party ever more onto that territory for votes. Labour is, to put it as charitably as I can, split on whether whipping up hate for votes is a good thing or a bad thing. What electoral gain is there to be for Lib Dems by pretending to position ourselves as a fourth-choice Brexit Party? That political market is very crowded indeed, and it’s taking haters for idiots. Are they going to vote for us if we offer them watered-down nastiness when so much full-blooded unkind is on offer? I may disagree with bigots, but I don’t smugly assume they’re so foolish that if we hide our Liberalism they’ll think we all agree with them.
Oh, one other thing: Charles was genial and extremely good at putting down people with charm. Paddy regarded every internal debate as a fight to the death and ferociously trained his considerable firepower on anyone inside the party who challenged his proposals. I was frequently in his line of fire but never took robust debate as a wound. I admired and respected both styles of leadership, but neither suffered fools gladly, much less tolerated bigots.
Once again, you need only read Charles’ own words I quote above to see how polite and gentle he was to those who thought persecuting minorities was the purpose of politics.
George, say what you mean, but say it for yourself. Do not hide behind a false picture of leaders whose principles you are utterly repudiating.
There are those in the party who are seeking to talk about “tolerating diverse views”.
Let’s be clear what they mean here. They mean, “we want to talk about how we should be allowed to discriminate against minorities but the fact that most people will call us what we are if we say the quiet part out loud makes us furtive and uncomfortable”.
There are social media groups where they say the quiet part out loud. The people doing so think they are safe, furtively scurrying about under their rocks.
They should be aware that their stone is a lot more likely to get turned over than they think.
I’m not very good at spotting dog-whistles, but “afraid they will be pilloried if they say what they really think” these days seems mostly to be code for one of:
🟊 Thinks we should be less tolerant of Muslims
🟊 Thinks we should be less tolerant of trans people
🟊 Thinks we should be less tolerant of immigrants
Having seen this kind of rhetoric before, I’d like to make clear that I’m just fine with people with these views staying away from the party.
As far as “write off old areas of strength” goes, what does that actually mean in places such as Yeovil where I live. We had 2 elections in 2019. In the local DC elections the Lib Dems crushed the Tories, winning over twice as many seats as them. In the GE the Lib Dems got crushed by the Tories who got almost twice as many votes. So is my area considered a current area of strength or an also ran?
@Peter Martin
I’d hardly put Farron seat alongside Munira Wilson’s seat as on par with each other in terms of wealth.
A really interesting post – thanks. About three years ago I wrote a post for LibDem Voice titled “is there room in this party for a pro-Brexit Liberal”. I ultimately came to the decision that no there wasn’t and I think the stance the party took at the General Election reinforced this view and deprived the party of many votes in “red wall seats” (one of which I live in). Strangely I still voted Lib Dem then, but that was more to do with the candidate than the manifesto. Brexit is done now – at least I hope it is. Now is the time for the Lib Dem’s to be looking at growing in the very areas where I live. Areas which voted Brexit and feel totally used and ignored by a virtue signalling, elitist Labour Party and are in danger of being used in similar ways by the Conservatives. Being pro-Brexit doesn’t automatically confer on you racist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant opinions. In most cases it is about democracy, civic pride, openness and tolerance. I want the Liberal Democrat’s to be a party I want to join again not another metropolitan centred mirror image of a Labour Party I now despise.
Adam Bernard. I interpreted “afraid they will be pilloried if they say what they really think” to refer to members and supporters who either voted for Brexit or, as I have, accepted the result of the referendum and opposed a second referendum and the revoke policy. Perhaps George Kendall could confirm or deny that?
Mike Read’s post on the 2 elections in Yeovil is interesting. I don’t know the South West well but I (as a Liberal Democrat member and someone who has voted for first the Liberals and then the Liberal Democrats all my adult life and who also has delivered leaflets and put up posters at elections) voted for the Liberal Democrats at the local election but witheld my vote for the European and General Election because of the Party’s anti Brexit position. Yeovil was a leave voting constituency may be that is the explanation for the difference in outcome. In Bosworth where I live, also a Leave constituencies, we won the locals well but lost the GE badly.
Consider Eastbourne. In 2017 Stephen Lloyd promised to vote for any deal to leave the EU in Parliament and was elected. In 2019 he reversed his position, presumably because otherwise the Revoke policy would have been even more rediculous than it already was.
Perhap’s making a voters position on Brexit the litmus test, when they agree with all or most of the rest of our policies and values is not a good idea.
George,
Again you’re making some references to some nebulous group whose views you won’t state. Unless you can actually make clear what you’re talking about, it’s going to be very hard to have a discussion. And like Sarah and Alex say above, it’s feeling very much like a dogwhistle rather than an attempt at an actual debate, so could we have some clarity, please?
And the rest is an irregular verb: I am patient and reasoned in my discussions, you are needlessly confrontational, they are intolerant and driving people out.
@Adam Barnard
Hi Adam,
Here’s three reasons to support a range of views in debate:
– A concern that suppression of debate is politically counter-productive and makes us ill-equipped to counter opposing arguments
– that people feeling free to express themselves is, in itself, a good (as in the party constitution)
– A belief that debate leads to better decision-making, especially in the detail
Free speech in the party is different from in the country, and we have values, as set out in the party’s constitution. These include, as some have said in this discussion, a defence of the rights of minorities, something I strongly support. But if we aim to be a party broad enough to win majorities in many constituencies, I think we should be reasonably generous in allowing people to interpret that constitution differently.
There are limits of course, using abusive language, or creating a dangerous stampede by calling “fire” in a crowded theatre are rightly opposed. But I think we should be careful not to extend those exceptions too far. I quite like the quote ascribed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
In the case of Europe, I’m like Voltaire. I believe in the EU, but I welcome the fact that our church is broad enough to include those who support a Norway-like arrangement. My desire that they feel welcome in the party is not dog-whistle opposition to the EU, but a belief in a broad church.
For an example of my actual views on Europe, see my facebook post here:
http://bit.ly/3cUhDvV
@Nick Barlow
I’m not going to break confidences by naming these individuals, even at a risk of sounding nebulous. Thankfully I don’t have to. I was hoping people such would join the debate in this thread, and @Wayne Chadburn and @Andrew Tampion have done so. Thanks, guys.
I don’t know them personally, but it sounds like they are exactly the kind of people I meant. It you want more detail, perhaps you could ask them.
@Michael Maybridge, @Julian Tisi, @Natalie, @Lorenzo Cherin, @Peter, @Stephen Howse
I agree.
If we want to be viable competitors to Labour and the Tories, we need to attract people with a pretty wide range of views.
I’ve heard some pro-EU people outside the party claim that anyone who doesn’t support EU membership is a bigot and a racist. I’d be very distressed if that view became commonplace in the party. I don’t think they are racists or bigots, and support their right to hold that view, even though I disagree.
I don’t think 52% of 2016 voters were racist. And if we went down that road on multiple issues, before long, we’d be excluding so many that we will only ever be able to win in the kind of seats @Peter Martin talks about.
@Mike Read
Thanks. Great to hear about your local election success in Yeovil. But when I talked about the risk of writing “off old areas of strength”, I meant general elections.
I’ve been a local councillor, and I know they can do vital work. But if central parliament is controlled by the Tories, we will be very limited indeed in the good we can do.
We must indeed remain a broad church, George, and the most recent posts here vividly illustrate why. Mike Read’s post from Yeovil and Wayne Chadburn’s from a ‘red wall’ seat suggest to me that concentrating on metropolitan areas and middle-class voters is only likely to diminish us further. Our party has the capacity to appeal to most people, because we believe in freedom and fairness, openness and internationalism economic liberalism and social justice. (Incidentally, George, no need to write about unfair benefits and inequality – extensively covered already in many articles on this site since the UN Rapporteur Philip Alston published his devastating statement in November 2018.)
Alex Wilcock’s persuasive posts here describe your admiration, Alex, shared by so many of us, for the way Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy stood up for the rights of minorities against popular dissent. I want to point out that the other leader who did that was Tim Farron, whose inspiring speeches about the Syrian immigrants struggling into Europe brought Conference to its feet time after time. He personally visited Lesbos to see the situation for himself. Yet came the General Election, and Tim’s Christian beliefs led to the downfall of his leadership with the conviction of some gays in the party that he was a bigot. We should be sparing in our denunciations. The only Lib Dem MP left in the north of England is I would say pretty universally admired by his constituents for his untiring devoted service to them over the many years since he first broke the Tory grip on Westmoreland and Lonsdale, and is an inspiration for those of us in the nearby constituencies. Quietly held beliefs, unstinting service to all regardless of who they are, mean a pejorative label has no validity to apply to such a man, who still in my view has very much to offer our party nationally.
Stephen Howse – “If we want to win some more seats, we do need their votes. We will get them by positioning ourselves to those people as the obvious alternative to the Tories once they’re sick and tired of the Tory government” – yes, by running on a centre-left radical platform.
“Or we could just chase after the same pool of voters as Labour, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid. With the Tories on 50% in the polls that obviously won’t deliver any success but at least people like Jennie above won’t have to sully themselves by talking to people who don’t agree with them, eh?” – many of the 50% are leftist Leavers, especially those who live in the Red Wall, or Libdem Leavers in the South West. I can see us trying to attract those people, in fact we must do so. Actual right-wingers, Thatcherites, Blue Tories…, however, should not be welcomed here, even if they vote Remain, because they will compromise our platform by shifting the debate rightwards.
What Alex said. All of it.
Maybe the party hasn’t changed that much 🙂
@Thomas “yes, by running on a centre-left radical platform”
I can imagine the thought process of the voter: “Hmm … I no longer want to vote Tory. They used to be a fiscally responsible, small state, pro-business party. Now they are a large state, anti-business party. I know, I’ll vote for the large state, anti-business Lib Dems as they’re clearly very different.”
“many of the 50% are leftist Leavers, especially those who live in the Red Wall, or Libdem Leavers in the South West. I can see us trying to attract those people,”
Again, given we already have the Leftist Leaver Corbyn/Momentumite Labour Party, what makes you think a much smaller Leftist Leaver Lib Dem party would be attractive a) to these voters and b) to the centrist remainer voters who previously voted for us?
Also – to deal with the implied ‘no space for Christians in the Lib Dems’ the much referenced above Charles Kennedy was a Roman Catholic.
If people think Paddy was tolerant of those with intolerant views I’d suggest you read his diary and the letter he sent the editor of his local paper who attacked him over the Sidney Cooke affair. Or when he and other Lib Dems defended the need for gypsy and traveller sites in Somerset – are those the people George is talking about when he says ” we’ll need to attract the support of voters who have opinions we dislike.”
When we lost Wells in 97 by 500 votes it was against the background of plans for 2 of the 5 proposed transit sites being in that constituency.
It seems that George Kendall is stating that we are not as broad a church today as we were before 2010. Implying that we expel more members now than we did then. If George has evidence that we are expelling more members as a percentage of our membership then he should provide the figures.
It could be said that in 1988 we had some members who were socialists and this made us a broad church. However, it could be said that today we have some members who are libertarians thus making us an even broader church. This could be true, but how one could prove it, I don’t know.
Perhaps all George means is that non main stream liberal views are less tolerated now than they were in the past. Or maybe those holding non main stream liberal views feel less tolerated. Where is the evidence?
I feel that after 2010 some views were less tolerated than in the past, with members posting that a particular view has no place within the party. I am thinking about social liberal views and non-support of the Coalition government. It could be that the internet has increased knowledge of individual members’ views with an increase in the expression of the desire of some individual members that people holding such views should not be party members.
As others have stated, we are a political party and there should be an expectation that party members support our values. This is expressed in the constitution as ‘seek(ing) to achieve the objects as set forth in the Preamble’. I think that the constitution is correct and that there should be an expectation that members ‘seek to achieve the objects as set forth in the Preamble’.
It is possible that George is not really talking about the tolerance of the views of members but the views of potential voters by members of the party, especially when he writes, ‘Some in the party argue that, to make an impact, we should stop appealing to a broad coalition. We should make uncompromising statements, however much it alienates some existing voters and members. That we could write off old areas of strength, and instead pursue less traditional seats, such as affluent metropolitan constituencies and university towns.’ Maybe he is talking about the core vote strategy. If he is, then there does appear to be evidence this is so, from the inclusion of the core vote strategy in the party’s strategy of, I think, 2017, to the idea of making ‘Remain’ seats, target seats, even where we had little historical voter support and a weak local party, in the 2019 general election.
If George is advocating the rejection of the core vote strategy and a return to a strategy of trying to gain votes from all members of the public, with target seats being chosen on the basis of the past voting record of the constituency and the strength of the local party to fight an election across the majority of the seat without outside help, then I support his view.
(George, I disagree with Katharine, I look forward to seeing an article written by you on the benefit cuts and poverty. We need to keep mentioning poverty, so the party will accept that fighting poverty is one of the main things we should be doing second only to saving the planet.)
TCO,
I think that in the twentieth century our party and the Liberal Party never wanted a smaller state. Therefore for us to be a party which supports a smaller state would be to walk away from this history.
@Michael BG “I think that in the twentieth century our party and the Liberal Party never wanted a smaller state.”
You might want to believe that, but it doesn’t make it true. For example:
I hope we will indeed return to the old strategy of trying to gain votes from all members of the public, with target seats being chosen on the basis of the past voting record of the constituency and the strength of the local party, as Michael recommends. The strategy and tactics adopted in the late General Election led to very disappointing results for us.
George, you are indeed welcome to strengthen the party’s commitment to better welfare provision and ending poverty by writing on the subject if you please. But I have felt disappointed that you have contributed very little to the discussions on the many previous articles, as far as I have observed, when your input would I feel sure have been valuable.
May I add one word to my previous comment that ‘we should be sparing in our denunciations’, about which I have been thinking. I believe that we must uphold freedom of thought, and freedom of expression so far as it does not do harm. But we should also allow people the freedom to refuse to express their views (a freedom denied Tim Farron as our leader), and in that case I think, judge people whose views we are not sure about by their actions, if judging at all.
Refusing to express one’s opinion *is* an action.
@Michael BG
Hi Michael,
First, a big thank you for avoiding the temptation of putting words into my mouth, and for working hard to try to understand what I might mean.
On your specific points.
– I’m not thinking about expulsions, I’m mostly thinking about party culture, and we ordinary members are central to that.
– You ask for evidence. I’m just an ordinary member, so mine is all anecdotal and mostly based on private conversations. But others have had similar experiences. Some have shared them in this thread.
– I’m not going to use political labels to describe who feels excluded. While it’s over individual policies, such as Europe, I think these people come from a range of political traditions.
– I think you are right that social media has a lot to do with this. Though it’s more that we spend less time than in the past closely relating to people we disagree with politically – except in flame wars, where the impersonal nature of the internet means we can be more confrontational than we would be in person.
– I’ve more been talking about party culture than the national party, so I’m not thinking so much about the core vote strategy, except where I’ve heard a few party members explicitly write off the south west and similar leave voting areas.
Re your point to TCO, while he might be right historically, that’s irrelevant. I think our state is now too small. I’d like us to grow it to help reduce poverty. But as I think money will always be tight, I’d want to rigorously test any proposal which might divert money away from the most vulnerable.
@Michael BG
Hi Michael,
A little more about what I’ve been trying to say.
Firstly, I wanted to stimulate a debate. I believe the question of how broad a church we are is a vital one for the party. It matters little what I think, and perhaps I’ve spent too much time answering questions about me, rather than talking about the wider issue.
I raise two issues: who we want to vote for us, and who we want as members and elected representatives.
I think the two are linked. If we say that members with certain views are beyond the pale, then we’re likely to be asked if voters with the same views are beyond the pale. If we do that with too many issues, we’re going to end up with a very small potential pool of voters.
Of course, there will be members and voters who are beyond the pale. I would want us to be wary about who we apply that to, but clearly there is a legitimate debate to be had over what policy opinions would fit into that category.
As well as electability there is an issue of principle. I believe welcoming a range of views is a good thing in itself. Welcoming them doesn’t in any way stop us adopting policies and a political vision they dislike. But there’s no need to pressurise them to shut up or get out.
This principle of tolerance is a good in itself, but it is also linked to electability. I suspect some who’ve left the party over Europe, and some who’ve stopped voting for us, would have continued to support us, if we’d been a little more generous in the way we treated dissenters, irrespective of how strongly pro-EU our position was.
@Katharine Pindar
Sorry to have disappointed you when I didn’t contribute to those discussions. Truth be told, my health hasn’t been 100% lately, which is one of the reasons for my absence.
“I keep meeting members who are afraid they may be pilloried if they express what they really thought”, our author wrote. They may well be right, and George makes a welcome plea for tolerance, as a core part of our tradition. So we should hear these views – being pro a soft Brexit being one of them often cited by members – with kindness and patience. But if the members don’t feel they can say what they truly think, they should also be allowed to refrain. Yes, Andrew, refusing to express an opinion IS an action, as you say: but is not one on which, for the most part, we have sufficient information to make a sound judgement.
TCO – most of your quotes refer to the time when the economic overturn window was swinging hard to the right (hence New Labour). This is not the case for 2020, when even the Tories have seen the writing on the wall.
Also, in the last election, our manifesto involves much bigger spending than the Tories, but there was also similar tax increase to cover it. The Tories spent less even after increasing but also had significant tax cuts.
TCO,
I am not sure quoting one person’s speeches even if at one time that person was leader of the party is a way of discovering the views of the Liberal Party. Looking at manifestos would be better. Looking at the Liberal Party 1964 manifesto (http://www.libdemmanifesto.com/1964/1964-liberal-manifesto.shtml) it seems the party wanted a larger role for the government with a national plan for economic growth, with the government intervening to achieve a growth rate of 4, 5 or 6% and having an incomes policy, government staff helping to get exports and getting the two sides of industry to work in partnership.
With regard to nationalisation the manifesto states no more nationalisation and no more denationalisation – a truce. It states that the Liberal Party wants to see a pension at half of average earnings. Social security funding should be changed so the revenue for social security benefits automatically rises with earnings.
George,
I was concerned to read that you were not 100%. I hope you are back to 100% now.
Perhaps you will think about how the core vote strategy has affected party culture. I think that it does influence party culture and has made it more acceptable to think of people with certain views as beyond the pale of our party.
With regard to a debate over who is beyond the pale to be a party member do you feel that the preamble to the constitution is useful? I think the idea of ‘seeking to achieve’ is useful as I think it allows quite a wide interpretation. I think it is important to emphasise that there is a huge difference between what members should ‘seek to achieve’ and what little a potential voter has to support. A voter only has to weigh up if they support more of what we say we will do than oppose. It is not a straight number count but also depends on how important a voter thinks each issue is.
It was good to read that you wish to see poverty reduced and you don’t want to see money diverted from the most vulnerable.
Katharine Pindar
“But if the members don’t feel they can say what they truly think, they should also be allowed to refrain.”
But, they don’t keep quiet about their true thoughts by choice, but as a mechanism of self protection.
This is a classic Walking on Eggshells trap laid out by bullies and control freaks. Even before they have heard the thoughts of ‘the silenced’, those commenters above who declare they don’t want people in their party with views that are racist and bigoted, have effectively shut down the conversation before it has even begun.
Thus, for members [and voters], to venture tip-toeing delicately into any form of words about their real (and valid), concerns about immigration has been pre-declared as racist or bigoted by the controllers trying to shut out alternative voices.
The implied threat is ~ Do you dare to speak out with an alternate view on immigration, and risk walking on the eggshells? Classic control techniques used by bullies and folk with personality disorders.
George Kendall: Thank you for your kind words in your post of 9.43am yesterday; however I think I should reassure you by making it clear that I have never felt unable to express my views on policies on which I do not agree with the Party line, for example the outcome of the EU referendum. By way of example when I decided that I could not vote or campaign for him I discussed this personally with both our candidate and our Constituency Chairman and remain on good terms with both.
In your post at 7.19pm yesterday you speculate on whether we could have retained the support of more Leave voters if we had, as a Party, respected their views even if we took a strongly pro Remain line. I repeat my point that the outcome of both the Bosworth and Yeovil constiuencies (both Leave voting) in the Local and General Elections last year (for late comers where the Local Elections were won but the General Election lost) indicates that many are still willing to support our Party: but are intelligent enough to work out that it is safe to vote for us in the Local Elections, which could not lead to Brexit being overturned, but not safe to vote for us during the General Election when we promised to revoke Brexit.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the good wishes.
I don’t want to blame the core vote strategy because I suspect problems connected to it were a symptom of the underlying cultural problem, rather than the cause.
I do like the preamble. It was borne out of merger, and so supporting a broad church was part of its purpose. I particularly like were it seeks to balance liberty, equality and community (which is the part I presume you mean) and where it talks about freedom of conscience.
Of course if you quote sentences out of context and take one interpretation while refusing to consider any other, it’s possible to argue that innumerable people are beyond the pale. Any principle taken too far becomes problematic. So if someone refuses to respect my views, should I be intolerant of their intolerance? I think that leads to a vicious circle. Better to respect their right to be intolerant, even as I continue to assert my views.
Re not diverting money away from the vulnerable, that’s more controversial than it sounds. If I were in the Labour party, for example, I’d say that nationalisation was diverting resources to little purpose, which could be used to reduce poverty (for example by building more houses and so reducing rents). If I did, doubtless some would accuse me of being a rightwing neoliberal, and they would suggest I join the Tories. Unfortunately, that sort of thinking isn’t limited to the Labour party.
@Thomas
I was rather proud of our manifesto. (Even more of our 2017 one when compared with Labour’s continuation of Tory benefits cuts) Some in our party criticise the party as anodyne, and seem to forget the significant anti-poverty policies we have campaigned for.
I agree with John Barrett. We come across as having too narrow an appeal by targeting minority groups too frequently, so we need to focus on the issues that are of national concern but put a positive case forward, be it on education or economic development.
George,
The original preamble was ‘borne out of merge’. The current one I think is unchanged since 1994 following the Constitutional Review following the 1992 general election. The easiest change to see is the name of the party, gone is ‘The Social and Liberal Democrats’, it is replaced with ‘the Liberal Democrats’. The other change I can see is the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, it is now a bit shorter with no mention of NATO, the United Nations and the Commonwealth.
I was quoting part of article 1.2 – the objectives of the Party.
If you wish to be tolerant of a person’s intolerance, then you have to be tolerant of those in the party who are intolerant of some people’s intolerance!
Someone in the Labour Party might argue that nationalising a particular industry was stopping more people ending up being vulnerable and/or living in poverty.
What I find most disappointing with our welfare and benefit’s policies is that they don’t include reversing all the benefit cuts since 2010. Until they do I can’t be proud of them no matter how marginally better they are than Labour’s (https://www.libdemvoice.org/restoring-the-benefit-cuts-a-look-at-our-manifesto-and-the-labour-partys-manifesto-62731.html).
Hopefully, Dilettante Eye, there are not too many in our party who are inclined to leap to conclusions about the undesirable (in their eyes) beliefs of others in the party without listening to them, but as you say there will be some members who feel they will be treading on eggshells if speaking out. Immigration has certainly been one of the contentious subjects, and it has to be. Was it right to freely admit EU citizens at all, when keeping out people from poorer countries, for example? Is the EU right to fortify its frontiers as it now does? But contentious subjects are the stuff of politics, after all. I think our author’s approach is right.
George, thank you for telling me health issues may have limited your involvement in commenting elsewhere on LDV, and I do send you my best wishes on that. I was aware of your statement about the 2017 manifestos’ commitments on welfare, so knew of your concern. I agree with Michael that we should have gone further, and reversed all the benefit cuts since 2010, and think therefore there is much more for us to seek to improve, even without the neglects of this new Tory government.
The paradox of tolerance appears to have been either misunderstood or open to multiple interpretations. This is what Popper actually says, quoted on Liberal England: “We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal.” Prior to that he states: “It may easily turn out that they (the intolerant) are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument.” This would suggest that the objective is to achieve rational argument. If people come at an issue with fixed views and an inability to accept other perspectives, it is not rational. These include people who are racists and bigots – but don’t forget Popper would also have applied this to totalitarian communists. We should encourage scepticism and debate within the party, not discourage it. Some may find the paradox becoming even more paradoxical.
I think a better way of winning is to change people’s opinions by winning the argument.
That starts by actually believing in liberalism at a fundamental level.
We seem to have a problem where it has become offensive to challenge illiberal views even within the party. We’ve started doing our opponent’s work for them. I’m fed up of reading our own member’s (including MPs) working against the party by appearing to support our opponent’s narratives.
“Even before they have heard the thoughts of ‘the silenced’, those commenters above who declare they don’t want people in their party with views that are racist and bigoted,”
It’s not a wholly unreasonable POV though!
There is a confusion here between free speech and free from consequence speech.
Mind you given that the party once said it was happy to keep a councillor as member who talked of the innate criminality of people from certain Eastern European countries and my local party chair said I was engaging in abuse of process when I wanted the regional party to act (they didn’t for the record!) I’m not sure where this crackdown on members with racist views has come from!
Hywel
“There is a confusion here between free speech and free from consequence speech.”
But what are the consequences of people with alternate views on immigration staying silent for fear of being branded racist or bigoted?
The people pre-empting alternate views by creating pre-declared labels of racism, may think they are very clever in maintaining a purist membership, but in reality it is a very dumb strategy. Recent experience informs us that this kind of coarse controlling ‘shut down’ approach to alternate views simply creates ‘shy voters’.
By telling people that think differently to you and your purist view, that they are, stupid. uneducated, racist, bigoted, thick, wanting to turn the clock back, dreaming of days of empire, xenophobic, transphobic, intolerant, nationalist, populists,…… might work in shutting down views that you don’t want to hear, but it doesn’t change minds.
Consequence ? The polling booth is anonymous.
It is a place where your real views can be democratically translated by a [x], in the full knowledge that you cannot be identified or scorned or labelled stupid or racist by the crude attempts of would-be controllers of free speech.
Thus the ultimate foolishness of the ‘controllers’ and suppressors of open conversation is believing that a nod of approval on the doorstep, will automatically translate to a success at the ballot box.
One of the main problems for liberals over Brexit was that they didn’t see it coming, and didn’t understand the true public strength of anti-EU feelings. Now you know why. You can bully and control people into shutting down their views, but in a democracy, you can’t shut down the consequences of a secret ballot reality?
As to Daniel Hannon, if that was the direction this party was headed in, rather like the German FDP, then count me out. I once asked a Frankfurt taxi driver what he thought about the various German Parties and on the FDP, he put it into a nutshell with “they are for the rich”. Their party gatherings look extremely well healed. Hannon’s extreme marketisation of everything would benefit the rich and large Corporation and would lose strategic food production here, bankrupting farms, losing factory jobs. But the poor might save a pound on kid’s shoes made in a third world sweat shop – Big Deal!
There is no political space on the centre right for this party or any other, certainly not under FPTP voting. The Tories own that space as the strongest party in the world and getting close to them is toxic, as the DUP discovered recently and lost votes and seats over, despite their deep tribal base.
The LibDems need to re-discover their radical edge they used to have, with distinctive policies for the modern age. See the Netherland’s party currently in government, D66.
This is the age of self driving vehicles, renewable energy conversions, International moves to cut CO2, particulate emissions and plastic dumping. We need a Basic Citizens Income to address the loss of all manner of jobs and income to robotics and advanced computing. Virtually every sector will be hit. Amazon are moving towards automated warehouses and are using technology to replace checkouts. It cannot all be solved by that LibDem cliche’ of a penny on the basic rate of income tax. This is big and it needs big policies
The LibDems do need to be a broad church and cannot ignore seats it used to hold such as many in the West Country.
The West Country region was quite brexity which did not help in 2019, but one of two things almost certainly have to happen. Either brexit will be seen as a major disaster from which the thrust of politics will be to seek to retreat from it and the public will come over in large numbers as they did after the Iraq War. Another massive con! Or else, brexit will be seen an an expensive but temporary, or badly handled glitch on the way to re-configuring the economy, from which it is not realistic to reverse. My money is on the former.
So in either case, the brexit issue that diverted votes away from the LibDems will either be neutralised, or go into reverse.
The other problem with just concentrating on Metropolitan areas and University towns is that that is the direction Labour are headed and they can put many more feet on the ground, especially in those areas, to outspend the LibDems and gain media coverage.
In 2019, when Labour were at their weakest for about half a century, they still managed to win Clegg’s old University seat Sheffield Hallam after a terrible lack of service by the sitting MP, or in Cambridge in the other closest contest.
@John Littler
As a social democrat, I’m uncomfortable when I meet Lib Dems who are too rightwing. Nonetheless, in order to succeed under first past the post, I think we need to build as broad a coalition as the Tories and Labour have.
There’s a risk, of course, that the party could shift in ways I don’t like. But if the alternative is to struggle along at our current polling of 12%, and to only elect a handful of MPs, then I think it is essential to take that risk.
As for the West country, maybe you are right that Brexit will soon become so toxic that we’ll easily recover in places like the West Country. But I think that is too optimistic. And it’ll be even harder if we don’t hold out the olive branch to those who voted Brexit. As I said above, I think voters will often support someone who supports things they disagree with, as long as they feel that someone listens to them and treats them with respect.
@Jon Hunt, @Dilettante Eye, @Galen Milne
Thanks. Very much agree.
@Katherine Pindar
I’ve a few other articles in mind already. But at some point, I want to talk exclusively about benefits cuts again.
I was recently reminded that the benefit cuts continue to be rolled out, even as the Tories plan to benefit the wealthy. Events like Coronavirus had driven this out of my mind, and if that’s true for me, it’s probably true for others.
https://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/budget-2020-personal-tax-tweaks-benefit-the-wealthy-2617432/
@ George Kendall George, you say, “But at some point, I want to talk exclusively about benefits cuts again.”
How about right now when the five week wait for universal credit still applies and Food Banks are facing desperate pressures as they try to deal with coronavirus ? As Emma Revie, chief executive of the Trussell Trust has said,
“Time and again over the past decade, food banks across the UK – aided by a generous public who have donated time, food and money – have stepped up to protect people on the lowest incomes in our communities. But with the spread of coronavirus we all now face an unprecedented challenge and uncertain future. It is possible that food banks will face increased demand as people lose income, at the same time as food donations drop or staff and volunteers are unavailable, due to measures rightly put in place to slow the spread of infection. All of this comes when food banks are already dealing with a record level of need for emergency food.
“We’re working with our network on how best to support people as the situation unfolds. Wherever possible, food banks will continue to provide the lifeline of emergency food to people unable to afford the essentials and we encourage the public to continue donating after checking with their local food bank what items are most needed.
“We welcome the Department for Work and Pensions’ measures that will not penalise or sanction people for self-isolating, but we ask our government to go further and consider additional measures they could take to ensure everyone has enough money for essentials at this challenging time. Ending the five week wait for a first Universal Credit payment would be one such measure that could help significantly.”
@John Littler “Either brexit will be seen as a major disaster from which the thrust of politics will be to seek to retreat from it and the public will come over in large numbers as they did after the Iraq War. Another massive con! Or else, brexit will be seen an an expensive but temporary, or badly handled glitch on the way to re-configuring the economy, from which it is not realistic to reverse. My money is on the former.”
There is evidence that pandemics go hand in hand with opening up of trade (for obvious reasons), and are then followed by periods of retrenchment. It may be that Brexit (and the rebalancing it inevitably entails) is just slightly ahead of the zetigeist. I wouldn’t bet on it being unpopular 18 months down the line.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Being all things to all people, campaigning on local issues and through by-elections was a great strategy 1970-2010. It dissolved like a sandcastle on contact with actual government. In 2005 we didn’t hold seats from Lands End to John O’Groats because of a great unifying philosophy which had persuaded people to back us, instead we’d told 63 different types of people 63 different things. Then we got found out. The two big parties thought it was hilarious – and they were right.
2. So having gone through a 40 year cycle, perhaps we should think again. I don’t think that local politics and by-elections have the novelty they did in the 1970s and 80s – there are more competitors. I think we ought to be clearer about what we are, which does mean making some decisions.
3. I think we potentially have a lot to learn from the SNP and FDP in slightly different ways. The SNP said a few things very clearly for long time. Not everybody agreed, but eventually the stars aligned. Now they’re in charge, which is something to ponder. The FDP also have a very clear message. They will probably never run Germany, but by cornering a particular ‘market’ they are always a factor and frequently significant. Something else to mull over.
4. One of our problems is that we have never really hung on to voters. Sadly, far too many ‘use’ us a transition from one position to another. Grimond and Thorpe reinvented liberal non-conformity so that the 60s romantic revolution was able to marry up to the formerly ‘non-conformist’ rural areas. It saved the Party then, but I think we need something else now.
@James Fowler that is the most clearly-expressed summary of our position I’ve ever seen. Especially point 1), which should be replayed to every “where we work, we win”/”It was better in Kennedy’s Day” poster we have here, at every single opportunity.
You really should make it a lead post. Brilliant.
@James Fowler, @TCO
I entirely disagree with both of you. What you are suggesting is a trap set by our enemies.
All parties campaign in a way that will be attractive to a wide range of people. We have been no different, as can be seen in our manifestos over the years. That is not a bad thing.
All parties are broad churches. For example, until recently, Heidi Allen and Priti Patel were in the same party, as were Jeremy Corbyn and Ian Austin. That didn’t stop both parties having effective national campaigns.
What our enemies would love us to do is to purge our ranks of dissenters, alienate members and voters, and become smaller and weaker. Every time they say, “no one knows what the Lib Dems stand for”, they are trying to spring this trap.
It is perfectly possible to produce a compelling narrative, that is attractive to the broad mass of the British people, and to a broad-based alliance of members.
@James
You give the example of the FDP. That’s a good one. The FDP survives (though only barely) on a narrow slice of opinion in Germany. Under first-past-the-post, they would have disappeared. I don’t want us to disappear.
If we alienate parts of our broad electoral alliance, we might get one or two seats where we have overwhelming local strength, like the Greens in Brighton. But we will get nowhere in other seats, like the Greens.
@TCO
I fear you are right on Brexit.
Also, this pandemic will cause major economic problems. Those problems may mask the self-inflicted wounds of Brexit, and so allow Johnson to get away with breaking all those promises.
“Being all things to all people, campaigning on local issues and through by-elections was a great strategy 1970-2010. It dissolved like a sandcastle on contact with actual government. In 2005 we didn’t hold seats from Lands End to John O’Groats because of a great unifying philosophy which had persuaded people to back us, instead we’d told 63 different types of people 63 different things. Then we got found out.”
A neat rewriting of history, which contains a grain of truth to encourage acceptance, coupled with a larger distortion to promote a faulty conclusion.
Sure, Focus campaigning didn’t make a great preparation for governing the nation, and has its limitations. Sure, like all parties, the Lib Dems were as George Kendall puts it, “broad churches”. Yet Steel, Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell all described the party as “centre left”, shared a belief in social justice without socialist ideology, and mostly told most people much the same thing.
This did not “dissolve like a sandcastle on contact with actual government” in 2010. It dissolved in 2008, when Nick Clegg’s “coup” took over leadership. Clegg’s first slogan – long before a Coalition Government had been mooted – was “Big Permanent Tax Cuts”. A phrase taken straight out of the lexicon of the US right-wing Republican small-state, flat-tax movement!
Our centre-left party had been hijacked by rightist ideologues masquerading as centrists. They knew exactly what they wanted to achieve in Government. Naturally, Clegg “got found out”. But that wasn’t because our unifying “centre-left” philosophy had failed in Government. It was because Clegg had abandoned and actively trashed that philosophy!
Clegg has now found his niche, once again using pseudo-liberal whitewash to cover up unpleasant reality, this time for Mark Zuckerburg rather than for Cameron and Osborne. This time he is no doubt even better paid. Meanwhile, his devastated party has run through three leaders in quick succession, none of whom have proven capable of reassembling a viable force from the fragments.
George:
What you say is true enough but does not make James’ analysis wrong. Too often we have relied far too much on voters who have projected their own wish lists on to us. James exaggerates, however our 2010 vote comprised protest voters, tactical anti Labour voters, tactical anti Tory voters and Liberal Democrat voters in very roughly equal measure, such that losing half our support was an inevitability the moment we had any say in government. Once support drops the slide becomes self perpetuating.
I do not know if we can project a clearer identity, but we have to try. As I see we could (and should) forge a clear Liberal identity based on a Liberal analysis of society and government. Social democracy is easily accommodated within this, but I cannot see coherence or success without putting Liberalism first. I think this would result in socially aware, managerial pragmatism yoked to an ill assorted range of fringe and topical issues, which would not go well. Do not think I would disparage socially aware, managerial pragmatism, but it definitely needs a clearly articulated context.
I have the perhaps erroneous impression, George, that you equate a strong identity with purge of dissenters. I believe the opposite is the case: with a clearly articulated philosophy and a strong identity it becomes easier to accommodate a broad spectrum. To add to this part of a Liberal, socially Liberal philosophy is to embrace diversity and plurality.
@Martin and @George “I have the perhaps erroneous impression, George, that you equate a strong identity with purge of dissenters. I believe the opposite is the case: with a clearly articulated philosophy and a strong identity it becomes easier to accommodate a broad spectrum. To add to this part of a Liberal, socially Liberal philosophy is to embrace diversity and plurality.”
Indeed, as we saw during the latter days of the last government, the first green shoots of this. We know that since the demise of the original Liberal Party in the 1920s, Liberals who were pragmatic dispersed left and right depending upon their preferences and loyalties. What we need is to reunite them.
@David Allen “Our centre-left party had been hijacked by rightist ideologues masquerading as centrists. They knew exactly what they wanted to achieve in Government. Naturally, Clegg “got found out”. But that wasn’t because our unifying “centre-left” philosophy had failed in Government. It was because Clegg had abandoned and actively trashed that philosophy!”
To coin a phrase, this is “A neat rewriting of history, which contains a grain of truth to encourage acceptance, coupled with a larger distortion to promote a faulty conclusion.”
Regular readers will be familiar with your personal animus towards Nick Clegg (is this a feature of all commenting Davids here?). There was no “coup”; he won a party election. He was also taking the first steps towards building exactly the sort of broad Liberal movement encompassing all strands of Liberal thought, so that the party could be a relevant force for change, not an irrelevant repository for protest votes that “dissolve like a sandcastle when the tide comes in.”
@Martin, you said “our 2010 vote comprised protest voters, tactical anti Labour voters, tactical anti Tory voters and Liberal Democrat voters in very roughly equal measure.”
All true. But that’s the nature of democratic parties in today’s world. Few voters are passionate supporters of their party. Labour and the Tories also have large numbers of supporters who vote for them in order to keep the other lot out. In Scotland, Labour voters loyally supported Labour because it was the best vehicle to keep out the Tories … until it wasn’t.
You said “As I see we could (and should) forge a clear Liberal identity based on a Liberal analysis of society and government.”
One of my difficulties with this, Martin, is I get different answers to the question as to what a clear Liberal identity based on a Liberal analysis of society and government is. It seems to me that there are different kinds of Liberalism.
I wrote an article the beginning of last year about social democracy and liberalism. This was partly to provide an opportunity for Liberals to define specificially what Liberalism was. I liked Joe Bourke’s response “I think most people would be hard pressed to come up with any substantive differences in practice between policies developed on a platform of social democracy from that of social liberalism.”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/why-i-call-myself-a-social-democrat-59791.html
Yet there seem to be liberals who disagree with what used to be a central tenet of liberalism – that of welcoming dissenting views. They’ve every right to that view, but it confuses me that they equate that with liberalism.
I do, however, agree with you that it’s possible to have a strong identity and vision, while welcoming dissenting views.
“We know that since the demise of the original Liberal Party in the 1920s, “…..
Surely, not a complete demise ? A near partial eclipse, certainly, but otherwise….
“A neat rewriting of history, which contains a grain of truth to encourage acceptance, coupled with a larger distortion to promote a faulty conclusion.”
You should have gone with Sir John Simon, TCO.
@TCO “He was also taking the first steps towards building exactly the sort of broad Liberal movement encompassing all strands of Liberal thought, so that the party could be a relevant force for change”
Unfortunately it looked more like the last steps towards anything like that 🙁
Curiously though, on many big issues in recent years the party has actually looked a lot more like a force for opposing change, e.g. remain, no to independence, etc. On a local level the party often seems associated with mobilising opposition to building developments.
Even on a contentious topic like grammar schools, whether you like them or not (let’s not go there! ;-)) the party’s position is simply a disappointing “no change”, and high profile “penny on tax for …” policies sound like more funding for more of the same.
Tuition fees and income tax have obviously been very important issues from the Coalition, but could potentially be viewed as merely tweaking a few numbers (thresholds, interest rates, etc.) in existing systems. Along with the perennial desire for electoral reform, only the cannabis legalisation policy leaps out as high-profile boat-rocking change.
TCO 18th Mar ’20 – 8:50am……………………..Regular readers will be familiar with your personal animus towards Nick Clegg (is this a feature of all commenting Davids here?). There was no “coup”; he won a party election. He was also taking the first steps towards building exactly the sort of broad Liberal movement encompassing all strands of Liberal thought, so that the party could be a relevant force for change, not an irrelevant repository for protest votes that “dissolve like a sandcastle when the tide comes in.”…………..
Strange then that the ‘dissolve’ bit happened during his tenure…..He took over a party on the up and left it at rock bottom..
“Facts. dear boy, facts”
@David Raw I was quoting David Allen.
@Peter Watson “Curiously though, on many big issues in recent years the party has actually looked a lot more like a force for opposing change, e.g. remain, no to independence, etc. On a local level the party often seems associated with mobilising opposition to building developments.
Even on a contentious topic like grammar schools, whether you like them or not (let’s not go there! ;-)) the party’s position is simply a disappointing “no change”, and high profile “penny on tax for …” policies sound like more funding for more of the same.”
I agree – and the Social Liberal wing are (ironically) in the vanguard of this. Say what you like about the Orange Book, but it was genuinely radical in its thinking.
@expats “Strange then that the ‘dissolve’ bit happened during his tenure…..He took over a party on the up and left it at rock bottom..
“Facts. dear boy, facts””
He inherited a party who’s vote consisted of at least a third anti-Tory protest voters, with probably another third anti-everyone protest voters. This was the result of the previous 40 years mish-mash that James highlighted.
To govern is to choose; we chose, and some of the protest voters and most of the anti-Tory above all else voters didn’t like it.
“Facts, dear boy, facts.”
TCO 18th Mar ’20 – 11:23am…………..He inherited a party who’s vote consisted of at least a third anti-Tory protest voters, with probably another third anti-everyone protest voters. This was the result of the previous 40 years mish-mash that James highlighted…..To govern is to choose; we chose, and some of the protest voters and most of the anti-Tory above all else voters didn’t like it…..“Facts, dear boy, facts.”….
Again, strange how this ‘mish-mash’ (although I prefer ‘broad church’) showed a steady increase from the first election under the Libdem logo (1992, if memory serves),
From 20, 46, 52, 62, 57 and then 8 when, presumably, all those ‘hangers on’ deserted this party. Perhaps continuing with that broad church (‘mish-mash’) would’ve resulted in a continued rise.
I’ll not continue this as your facts seem totally at odds with my memory of events..
A real variety here, much sense, amongst lots who in many senses at odds.
Martin refers to Liberalism, so does George, who quotes Joe.
TCO is moderate re: Brexit. Moderate on immigration levels. Not against Clegg but very much for that man.
Davids all loathe much of his supposed Orange book coup.
I am as much for as against him. I liked him, voted for him, have no more against him than all those who both did well and badly in government.
I am to the left on poverty, benefits, ubi, a social democrat.
I am not on tv licence, public services reform, in keeping with the left in any party, the conservatism is in thinking everything must be as is ever! But that is not for the poor it is against them. I support those who are poor. How can you support people who are , but support the tv licence? Or waits for one size fit all services?
I say, FDR meets JFK, is my favoured yardstick. Left wing in a crisis, if it backs those least powerful, most in need. Centre ground if radical and moderate and progressive accordingly.
I think it would be good if the fringes, those Liberals who are against free speech, debate, ideas differing, left politics, to those who like these essentials.
For clarification, Sir John Simon began his career as a Liberal (identified initially with the left wing but later with the right wing of the party). He joined the National Government in 1931, creating the Liberal National Party in the process. At the end of his career, he was essentially a Conservative.
Simon was the M.P. for the area I was brought up in (Spen Valley). The local Liberal Party and Conservative Party organisations had merged into one…. until we revived a proper Liberal Party under Jo Grimond in 1964 and with the future Judge, Jim Pickles, as our candidate..
As to the leadership of Sir Nicholas, he was elected by a very narrow majority of 501 (1.2%) over Chris Huhne – on a lower turnout than Ming received. Having attended a hustings in Edinburgh I voted for Clegg without any enthusiasm and later regrets because neither impressed. Looking back it was a Morton’s Fork of a decision.
I suppose we could now pass the time of self isolation doing a ‘Where are They Now competition’ on the 57 Lib Dem M.P.’s elected in 2010 (5 less than Charlie got in 2005).
@expats respectfully you are totlaly missing the point.
If your USP as a party is “we’re not the other two and we’re against everything”, then you can build up a large dissatisfaction vote. Great – get 40, 50, 60, 70 MPs – in opposition. MPs who don’t have to be responsible for any decisions, but can argue against anything.
Inevitably when you go into government you have to be >b>for something, and anyone who is against that specific something or a congenital protester deserts you.
It’s really that simple.
@Lorenzo Cherin “I am to the left on … I am not on …”
And there’s the rub! There are probably as many versions of “I am to the left on … I am not on …” as there are Lib Dems (if not more ;-)).
It is easier for a party to be broadly to the left or to the right, but the problem with life at the political centre is that Lib Dems can find themselves diametrically opposed to each other, with heated disagreement on individual policies, despite not being all that far apart in the grand scheme of things.
@David Raw
“I suppose we could now pass the time of self isolation doing a ‘Where are They Now competition’ on the 57 Lib Dem M.P.’s elected in 2010 (5 less than Charlie got in 2005).”
A little while ago I spent days compiling the list, except I made the cut-off just before the election in 2015:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/whatever-happened-to-the-class-of-2015-the-full-list-63051.html
@David Raw “I suppose we could now pass the time of self isolation doing a ‘Where are They Now competition’ on the 57 Lib Dem M.P.’s elected in 2010 (5 less [sic] than Charlie got in 2005).”
Indeed. And we could liven up by counting up to 851,370, which is the number of votes Nick Clegg gained in 2010 over and above those gained by Charles Kennedy in 2005 (2010’s total of 6,836,824 also being the highest number of votes ever cast for the Liberal or Liberal Democrat Party).
@TCO “we could liven up by counting up to 851,370, which is the number of votes Nick Clegg gained in 2010 over and above those gained by Charles Kennedy in 2005”
It could be a long period of self-isolation so maybe we should count the 4,420,908 votes lost in 2015 when everybody knew Clegg better.
“also being the highest number of votes ever cast for the Liberal or Liberal Democrat Party”.
Given that the population was 44 million in 1923 as against 63 million in 2010…. and men had to be 21, women (with property qualifications) had to be 30.
Statistics, statistics …… and hoping your elastic percentages don’t fall down when closely examined.
TCO – you refer to “Facts. dear boy, facts” and then say ”He (Nick Clegg) inherited a party who’s vote consisted of at least a third anti-Tory protest voters, with probably another third anti-everyone protest voters. This was the result of the previous 40 years mish-mash that James highlighted.”
What evidence have you to support your claimed fact?
There would be very little demand for a free market party nationally – it would simply repel the bulk of voters.
Most voters support regulated private business as being suitable for most things, but certainly do not back free markets, de-industrialisation, offshoring jobs or global finance. Nor are the use of outsourcing companies or foreign governments and foreign investors in public services.
It would be a dead end which would appeal to a limited number of richer voters. Essentially it would be the mirror image of an outright Marxist party in terms of national popularity such as the SWP (as opposed to the caricature of Labour that the media likes to claim).
@Peter Martin “It could be a long period of self-isolation so maybe we should count the 4,420,908 votes lost in 2015 when everybody knew Clegg better.”
And we could finish it off with a brisk step through the c100,000 fewer votes Farron got in 2017.
@David Raw – You can spin your stats any way you want to – what I wrote is correct. It is the highest number of votes ever cast for the Liberal or Liberal Democrat Party.
@David Evans as you’re the third David of the anti-Clegg apocalypse, and we’ve been round this particular merrygoround many times, I’ll simply refer you back to the polling evidence of 2010. TLDR: 1/3 fell off May-September; a further third following tuition fees.
@Richard Easter “There would be very little demand for a free market party nationally – it would simply repel the bulk of voters … It would be a dead end which would appeal to a limited number of richer voters.”
Funnily enough, richer (if we correlate wealth will social class) voters are the ones that are most likely to vote for us. Sounds like a sensible core vote strategy to me.
It would appeal to a limited number of richer voters and would repel everyone else – including rich voters who believe in socialism / social democracy or the One Nation Tory types.
A true free market party would bomb. Especially now. The high time for that style of politics was the 80s. Johnson didn’t win by talking up free markets.
@Richard Easter I think you mistake corporate welfare for a free market. The two are not the same.