According to The Economist,
“If the Liberal Democrats want to replace the Conservatives, they must move further right on the economy”.
This was instantly backed unsurprisingly by the Liberal Reform group, the last of the so-called Orange Bookers, a dominant force during the Clegg years. Every time these guys support or share anything, it usually causes outrage from the grassroots, who have historically been more progressive than the politicians. As someone from the right of the party, I’m always perplexed at how much anger Liberal Reform generate. I very happily accept most Lib Dems’ identity as centre-left, but parties that reach the greatest heights of politics are broad churches. Those, like myself, who often dare support these ideals are often scoffed at for having short memories, and forgetting what happened in 2015. But have we?
Under Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems secured over 6.8m votes in 2010, the highest number of votes the party has ever received to this day. Most political commentators blame what happened in 2015 on broken promises, notably tuition fees, rather than ideology (which hadn’t really changed that much in those 5 years). In fact the majority of the Lib Dem seats were lost to the then centre-right Conservative party. The Lib Dems did adopt a more centre-left stance at the next GE in 2017 and the number of votes they received went down further. I don’t think anybody wants me to attempt to unpack 2019. Now with this in mind, I am fairly sure that I am not suffering acute memory loss at the sprightly age of 35. However, my interpretation of events is clearly at odds with the ever-progressive grassroots of the party.
Fast forward to 2024 and Ed Davey has pulled a blinder, beating a broken electoral system at its own game, at a time when those centre-right voters felt furiously betrayed by the now right-wing Conservative Party. What goes around, comes around? Ed is socially centre-left, but he did contribute to the Orange Book, and has put Liberal Reform supporters in his Shadow Cabinet. A good leader understands unity comes from bringing all wings of your party together. Ed Davey blames what happened in 2015 on not showing they cared enough, and Nick Clegg says it’s because they looked like passengers in Government.
Of the 27 seats where we came second in this year’s election, 20 of those constituencies elelected a Conservative. My view is, if you really want to “finish the job”, then you aren’t going to do that by shifting to the left on fiscal policy. It is of course, just my opinion, but what happened in the past cannot be used to constantly discredit it. As clearly the past itself is somewhat subjective and open to interpretation.
Either way, there has never been a better time to come together, with open minds and optimism. Liberalism is for everyone, and the place that we meet to celebrate liberty is on the centre ground. I’d still like to believe we are in this together.
* Cllr Buddy Anderson is a Lib Dem District Councillor in Harborough
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
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
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
42 Comments
“Most political commentators blame what happened in 2015 on broken promises, notably tuition fees, rather than ideology”
yeah right. I was appalled by the behaviour of the Clegg cabal, supporting unnecessary austerity. It wasn’t what I suspect most of those who voted LibDem in that election expected or wanted – certainly wasn’t what I expected after delivering thousands of leaflets …tuition fees was just the cherry on the icing. Voters do not like to be betrayed.
>” then you aren’t going to do that by shifting to the left on fiscal policy.”
I think a big issue is something Peter Martin repeatedly raises, namely the difference between household debt and currency issuing government debt. For too many years, many politicians (who despite their claimed degree subjects) have also confused matters (deliberately?) leading many to believe they are the same and thus must be paid down.
If we are to build n nuclear power stations, x hospitals, educate y future NHS employees etc. then money will be required; increasing the national debt. However, with care much of this debt will be (state owned) asset backed rather than loans given out by the banks ( aside: in some respects it would seem ownership of the currency has shifted from the government/bank of england to the commercial banks).
Hence the idea that the government can print money is seen as left leaning an irresponsible; even though it is doing it all the time, just that it is between the government and the banks rather than government and the people.
As the furlough scheme demonstrated, paying money directly to people has a bigger economic effect than paying money to the banks (aka quantitive easing). Hence paying public workers more might be a good way of boosting the domestic economy.
This fiscal year, the UK government will likely spend just over £1.2 Trillion, being about 46% of GDP, with debt (excluding money owed to itself) just over 100% of GDP. A bit less than 58% of this year’s spending will be on ‘social protection’, health and related services, with a further 9% on education. About a third of spending this year will be on ‘everything else’ including defence and economic management. What changes are we seeking to this fiscal picture ? How much spending is politcally discretionary, and how much can be adjusted ?
Jenny Barnes 26th Sep ’24 – 12:09pm:
I was appalled by the behaviour of the Clegg cabal, supporting unnecessary austerity.
Austerity was required by the EU who put the UK into Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) from 2008 to 2017 and prescribed “fiscal consolidation” as agreed in the annual Convergence Programmes. Labour would have made similar cuts…
‘Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher’ [March 2010]:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher
After being suspended during Covid, Excessive Deficit Procedure is now back…
‘EU to Initiate Excessive Deficit Procedures Against Italy, France, and Ten Other Members’ [April 2024]:
https://ibafin.com/2024/04/03/eu-to-initiate-excessive-deficit-procedures-against-italy-france-and-ten-other-members/
‘Austerity 2.0 is another attack on democracy’ [April 2024]:
https://left.eu/austerity-2-0-is-another-attack-on-democracy/
Might we have some definition or indicators of “Left” and “Right” before we start moving.?
I agree with Jenny Barnes If “replacing the Tories” means “taking their position” or becoming, as some on the Left use to call us (wrongly, or so I thought)) ” Tories without their boots on” , I want nothing to do with it and see no point in it. That was certainly not the vision of Jo Grimond, a far better Liberal leader than Clegg, which brought me into the then Liberal Party in 1962.
Sorry “use” should read “used”
A good question Steve but first maybe we should ask why every dichotomy need a left and a right. High government fiscal account defecits have been championed by people who would generally be placed on the left or the right. One useful measure of a policy is the extent to which it makes society more equal. You can call that left if you must.
It’s funny how the elections this article mentions exclude those before 2010. In 1997 we ran left of labour by proposing to increase income tax by 1p
It’s funny how the elections this article mentions exclude those before 2010. In 1997 we ran left of labour by proposing to increase income tax by 1 and the top rate to 50p and to introduce local income tax, we maintained these policies in 2001 and 2005 and went further left.
This year we also ran left of labour, albeit not so starkly by proposing higher spending funded by capital gains and social media taxes.
These were the best four elections our party has had! And most of our seats in all of them were in excellent Tory areas.
Indeed despite this articles cherry picking it still can’t see the wood through the trees.
The votes we gained in 2010 were from young left leaning voters charmed by our progressive rhetoric. And whilst we didn’t propose an overall tax rise we still proposed more progressive taxes with a mansion tax and capital gains hike.
Finally the betrayal on tuition fees has everything to do with ideology! Nick Clegg never cared for our policy and tried to ditch it in 2009 but the party wouldn’t let him!
The MPs that voted against were disproportionately on the left of the party.
That should read our seats were in “ex Tory areas”. (Typing on my phone)
Agree about inequality as a litmus test. Policymakers should never forget the inequality fundamentals. Without transparency and accountability governments will impose rules serving only the elite. Without vigilance backed by criminal law (ie law against theft), private enterprises will monopolise, cartelise and ‘serve only the elite’. If democracy is permissive of these things, you can be sure it is not real democracy. That is the very definition of ‘public policy’.
The pre-coalition Lib Dems were in large part sustained by an unstable protest vote with absurdly high voter churn rates (50-60%+ iirc) from election to election. A Lib Dem priority should be to avoid recreating that scenario and not indulging in student protest politics
The high Lib Dem vote in 2010 was secured after 13 years of a failing Labour government and the hard work of many good activists. It also was due in no small part to the inspirational leadership of Charles Kennedy whose opposition to the invasion of Iraq was greatly admired by many on the progressive wing of politics.
Clegg and his supporters weren’t daft enough to attempt a major reversion of the party programme they engineered a coalition with the Tories instead. The agreement they signed up to showed their lack of negotiation skills and complete lack of principle nearly destroying the party in the process. I was a local election candidate in 2011, 2012 and a campaigner in what had been a marginal seat in 2015. Our brand was toxic, scores of centre left voters abandoned us and the result is well known. We didn’t do much better in 2017 because memories of the coalition were still fresh.
Looking forward the positioning of the party shouldn’t be about left or right. Liberal philosophy doesn’t fit on that spectrum, we are for liberty and against authoritarianism. The two major parties belong to the latter tradition which is why we oppose both!
And it should be clear from the excellent election results in previously safe Tory seats that very affluent voters will give us our support if we present a coherent liberal approach to public services and taxation. We don’t need to tack to the right to win over liberal-minded Tory voters.
On the other hand, if we went for punitive personal taxation, that would shred our support amongst that electorate.
We have an opportunity to implant liberalism as the default choice for affluent voters across and beyond the south. that would seriously weaken conservatism. To do that the last thing we need to do is ape the conservatives either economically or on social policy. Former Tory voters voted for change.
@ Roland,
“Hence the idea that the government can print money is seen as left leaning an irresponsible…..”
“Printing money” isn’t really the right way to put it. It’s nearly all created in a computer these days. It would be irresponsible if it were done to excess. This would be inflationary. But, equally it would be irresponsible if it weren’t done sufficiently to keep the economy out of semi permanent recession.
“As the furlough scheme demonstrated, paying money directly to people has a bigger economic effect than paying money to the banks (aka quantitive easing).”
QE isn’t really paying out money to the commercial banks. It’s a swap of assets (bond IOUs for cash IOUs). So both the central bank and commercial bank end up all square at the end of it all. The Treasury ends up with more cash which it can then spend into the economy.
“Hence paying public workers more might be a good way of boosting the domestic economy.”
Public sector workers should be paid fairly but not simply paid more to boost the economy. There are better ways to do that. Like restoring some of the cuts to local councils for example.
@ Paul,
“…..with debt (excluding money owed to itself) just over 100% of GDP”
I think this includes money owed by the Treasury to the BoE as part of the QE process . It should be included IMO. Debt is actually created when money itself is created. A swap of cash IOUs for bond IOUs, as part of the QE process, doesn’t change the total of issued IOUs.
I agree with Ed Davey’s analysis of the 2015 disaster. Tuition fees didn’t help, but I doubt Labour is going change that. It is all very well to classify yourself as centre-right or centre-left, but if you get the politics wrong you will lose a lot of seats.
It is simplistic to talk in terms of left or right but as a few have already said one of the key issues is reversing the growth of inequality and helping the poor. This is more than simply giving more financial benefits, though currently there are people who desperately need that which is a disgraceful position for out country to be in. It’s about helping people to develop themselves and requires more interconnectedness of policy making. People need help to be healthy, to engage well with other people, to develop their education and skills, to participate in sport music and cultural activities, to be protected from crime, to get plenty of fresh air and exercise, to feel accepted in their diverse characteristics and so on. This requires a fairer distribution of money in the private sector as well as public sector. Government leads on this by investing for our future and there is money available to do that; it just happens to be in the wrong hands and let’s remember we are not a high tax country, just average.
Overcoming inequality means helping many people to reach the point where they do not need state financial help but can contribute more both by what they pay and by what they do.
I agree.
There are two separate axes in political theory. On the social axis that goes from socially liberal to socially authoritarian, we should be socially liberal, valuing people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, etc.
On the economic axis, we should be centre right, valuing the benefits of free market capitalism, while supporting a safety net for those who for various reasons fall on hardship.
I forgot to mention in my list of things that help people develop themselves the need for secure affordable housing and the encouragement to plan long term by saving for future activities and of course saving for a decent pension.
Buddy Anderson,
It was not clear in our 2010 manifesto that the leadership of the party had moved to the right. It stated that the economy needed an economic stimulus before the deficit could be reduced.
Our huge drop in our vote share was not only due to us saying in 2010 we would bring an end to broken promises and then the party supporting MPs who broke their pledge on tuition fees, but also being active supporters of austerity and the cuts.
I think you are correct the rightward move of our party on economic policy ‘hadn’t really changed that much’ since the coalition, and Ed Davey still supports this.
People who voted for us want the problems of the UK public services sorted out, and this can’t be done without ditching the new fiscal rule that suddenly appear in our manifesto ‘to get the national debt falling as a share of the economy’. We need to keep calling on more investment in public services.
Chris Moore,
Indeed, ‘Former Tory voters voted for change’ and ‘the last thing we need to do is ape the Conservatives either economically or on social policy’.
Thank you, @Buddy Anderson! It’s so nice for a change to see an LDV article that doesn’t call for us to keep moving more and more leftwards, and which recognises that in most of our target/newly held seats, our opponents are the Conservatives, and we ain’t going to do well in those seats by moving further away from the traditional (liberal) Conservative voters who live in them!
Of course left/right isn’t an all-or-nothing thing. It is possible to call for slightly higher taxes/spending (left) while also being ruthless in making sure the money spent is targeted well and not wasted (right). We can rigorously defend the free market economy and the profit motive (right) while tackling unethical behaviour by businesses (left). We can prioritise net zero (ought to be politically neutral but in practice associated with the left) while emphasizing the role of the entrepreneurial innovation in developing the technologies to achieve that (right) and so on. And we can be constantly looking for new but evidence-based approaches to make Government better and improve people’s lives (radical but not left or right).
That kind of pragmatism is not only how we can keep the centrist voters we need to win elections but also develop a program for Government that could be credible and effective rather than utopian and ideological, should we ever get the chance to implement it.
I wouldn’t recommend to the Lib Dems that they should move to the left or the right. That’s not my call to make. However I would recommend to all political parties that they should use more rational thought.
So, for example, on the question of more privatisations in the NHS which is perceived as a left-right issue, we should perhaps ask what we are trying to achieve. I’d hope we can all agree we want the best value for money.
A further simple example would be the employment of nurses. Say it costs £40k p.a. to directly employ a nurse in the NHS. We don’t have enough nurses so the NHS employs agency nurses. The cost of an agency nurse will be significantly more, say £60k p.a.
However, are extra nurses available because of the agencies or do the agencies only exist because they are able to recruit NHS staff? We also might want to ask if the financiers behind the agencies are in the business to provide better services or if they are in it to provide more expensive services which will support a healthy profit margin for themselves?
We can ask similar questions about many of the privatisations which have taken place and ask if we are better off or worse off because of them.
If Lib Dems think we are better off, this of course would be a reason for shifting to the right.
Clarity and specifics are important in politics as well as in life generally.
Does Councillor Buddy Anderson support the abolition of the two child benefit cap and the restoration of the winter fuel allowance for pensioners ? Similarly, in retrospect, does he support the bedroom tax, the Lansley NHS reforms, and the austerity measures introduced in 2010-15 ?
The Brisish social attitudes survey is a good source of data to the shifting views of the public on the performance of government. The key points from the June 2024 survey just before the election include:
Low trust and confidence in governing arrangements:
– 45% “almost never” trust governments to put the nation’s interests first, up from 34% in 2019.
-After falling to 61% in 2020, 79% now say the system of governing Britain needs “a lot of improvement”, the same as in 2019.
Dissatisfaction with public services:
– A 52% level of dissatisfaction with the NHS, more than double the level in 2019 (25%).
– Dissatisfaction with social care has increased over the same period from 37% to 57%.
– 46% say the government should increase taxation and spending, only slightly down on 53% in 2019
Reactions to policy changes:
– 39% think migrants are good for Britain’s economy, down from 47% in 2019.
– 57% of people now express ‘Eurosceptic’ views, compared with 69% in 2019.
– 73% believe there is “quite a lot” of poverty in Britain, up from 68% in 2019.
@Jeff
The UK wasn’t in the Eurozone as it wasn’t bound by any the EUs fiscal rules, and major EU economies bend them all the time (France is a key example). Not to mention UK austerity was notable for harsh spending cuts as opposed to tax hikes as seen in the rest of the EU.
Plus if the EU really was to blame for UK austerity, why didn’t the UK media say so? The EU has long been scapegoated for everything wrong in Britain.
Besides, UK austerity was done
@ William Francis,
Of course you are correct that the UK shouldn’t have been affected by such fiscal rules as the EU/Eurozone might want to impose on itself. If so, why did the Eurocrats busy themselves by writing extensive reports on our supposed excessive deficit? The one below is just one of many that can be found on the internet.
Didn’t they have anything better to do? Or, was there a real reason for going through what should have been a pointless exercise? Was there something going on that we weren’t told about?
On the point of taxes vs spending cuts: Didn’t the Tories put up VAT from 15% to 20%? It’s curious that the Tories don’t seem to include VAT when they claim to be in favour of low taxation.
https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/30_edps/126-03_commission/com-2020-557-uk_en.pdf
William Francis 27th Sep ’24 – 11:31am:
The UK wasn’t in the Eurozone as it wasn’t bound by any the EUs fiscal rules,…
The fiscal rules are set out in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) which is part of the Maastricht Treaty. They apply to all EU members. We had a treaty obligation (“international law”) to adhere to them. The ECJ ruled that all EU members were subject to the same provisions including the EDP…
‘EC reprimands Brown over UK deficit’ [January 2006]:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/jan/11/economy.uk
I’m not going to say anything that we don’t all know already, but as the conversation slowly drifts away from Cllr Anderson’s original proposition, it might be helpful. Most political activists/obsessives (that’s us, by the way) are more radical in their views than the average voter. All the major political parties are broad churches, they have to be in a FPTP electoral system in order to put together the coalition of voters necessary. But at some point the party has to ask itself how broad a church it can be before it becomes an unstable coalition (as happened to the Conservatives, who have eased the tensions by kicking out the one-nation lot). Activists will often want a certain amount of ideological purity which runs contrary to the “broad church” thesis.
To apply this to the Lib Dems, there is a strong progressive element within LD activists, on both social and (to a lesser degree) fiscal matters. There is a degree of conflict between factions with the LDs over issues of free speech – for further details a look through back copies of Liberator will be informative. All of this would be extremely unedifying to the soft Tories of the home counties who have lent us their vote in the believe that we are amiable centrist dads (and mums !). So ultimately, we have to decide, radical firebrands or centrists ? I fear our current attempts to be all things to all people will result in some kind of collective nervous breakdown.
@Chris Cory: we’re not trying to be all things to all people. We’re presenting a liberal programme to maximise positive liberty. This will attract a wide range of voters from moderate left to moderate right. It’s perfectly fine for there to be a little argy-bargy amongst friends.
There will always be a beloved fringe of firebrand activists in the LDs; but all parties have such activists. The gravity of the party is centripetal, not centrifugal.
Yougov has published a survey Party conferences 2024: What do Britons think of the Liberal Democrats?
Not sure there is much new to be devined from the feedback. The issue of differentiation from the Labour party is perhaps likely to be as much an issue in this parliament as it was during the coalition years.
I don’t want us to replace the Conservatives – or anyone else. i want our campaign for electoral reform to succeed so that more than two philosophies can exist side by side
Surely it is not a question of Liberal Democrats “moving to the left” at all. The Comservatives have moved to the right over several decades, so much that Thatcher and Major almost seem like moderates now! The Tories will move further right to stop more of their vote going to the Faragists, so that leaves out a lot of scope – if we can use it.
And let us not always look at the left-right axis, the authority-liberty axis is just as important to Liberals if nor more so. Remember during the last Labour Government we opposed 90 day detention, ID cards, and biometric passports.
Chris Read: I’m not sure anyone is arguing that we completely replace (as in get rid of) the Conservatives. As I understand it, replacing in this context simply means replacing them in their role as one of the two big parties, so the two biggest parties instead become Labour and the LibDems, with the Conservatives a 3rd party. I can’t see many LibDem supporters objecting to that, and if we can achieve it, it also provides one of the clearest long term paths to electoral reform.
@Steve: I’m not sure that objecting to biometric passports is something to shout about: We have them routinely today: They provide better security, allow getting through passport control more efficiently, and as far as I can see, have no downsides.
@ Simon R,
“As I understand it, replacing in this context simply means replacing them (the Tories) in their role as one of the two big parties”
This isn’t at all realistic. The Tories are the party of the ruling class, so they’ll always be in first or second place. They know they will inevitably become unpopular from time to time and drop down to second spot which is why they need a safe alternative. At present this is the Labour Party which isn’t too radical to fill in for them temporarily.
If you want to be more realistic you should be aiming to displace the Labour Party.
“The Tories are the party of the ruling class,”
Well, they were. I don’t think those who rule care much exactly who governs, as long as they do as they are told, and now Labour are doing just that.
As one of the local electorate said to me ” I don’t bother to vote. No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in”
@Peter – blimey, do you imagine we’re living in the 15th century or something? These days we have (admittedly, imperfect) democracy: There isn’t a ‘ruling class’ of barons and nobility who rule by right and will always rule. I would say the Tories have been so successful the last 100 years or so, in part because they have proven very adept at shifting their political positions to the electoral needs of the day and maintaining a big enough coalition within one party, and in part because, at least until the time of Thatcher, their main selling points were continuity and economic competence – messages that were very attractive to a large portion of the electorate. There’s no inevitability about the Tories remaining one of the largest parties, although the nature of first past the post does make it particularly difficult for other parties to break through.
@ Simon R,
There is a saying “Money Talks”. Therefore, most of us are speechless! Parliament is like a honey pot to swarms of lobbyists. Many of whom will be working on Rachel Reeves to sign lucrative PFI deals. If they were such a good idea why would they have to bother? The campaign to install Keir Starmer as Labour leader was financed from dubious sources.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-prime-minister-morgan-mcsweeney-investigation-65fnh8zrt
This is how the 21st century ruling class operate which I agree is somewhat different from their 15th century counterparts.
“These days we have (admittedly, imperfect) democracy”
How imperfect does it have to be before it stops being a democracy in any real sense?
@Jenny: I would say a country stops being a democracy if it is no longer reasonably possible for its citizens to hold the Government to account and change the Government if they don’t like it, or if free speech is being actively suppressed. So for example I’d consider Hungary as borderline no-longer-a-democracy and Venezuela as definitely no longer a democracy. The UK is nowhere near that point.
Or you could use something like the Economist Democracy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index), which scores countries by various measures of their democratic credentials, and which firmly has the UK as a ‘Full democracy’ (Interestingly, it has the US as a ‘flawed democracy’)
left or right, what rubbish! We need to show we are a pragmatic party able to adopt the correct policy for the circumstances. Politics is a juggling game so we need to be better jugglers than the others.