By William Barter, Sian Reid and David Grace
In 2005 we offered “the real alternative”. In 2010 we offered “change that works for you”. And in 2015 it looks increasingly likely that we will offer to “build a stronger economy and a fairer society, enabling everyone to get on in life” (SEFS).
Cambridge Liberal Democrats recently had a meeting to discuss the direction of the party – you may have read about it in the media. We disagreed about the best solution, but we all agreed that we face very real problems, especially in how the party presents itself in public.
Our message is far more important to us than messages are to Labour and the Tories. People broadly know where the other parties stand; they are still unclear about us. We need to provide a coherent theme, linking what we have achieved, what the Tories have stopped us from doing, and what we would fight for with a second term in government. In an era of multi-party government, we cannot state with one hundred percent certainty the policies we will be able to get through parliament. No party can. But we can be clear about what we stand for. We can be clear about who we are.
SEFS does not let us do this. SEFS places us as a split-the-difference party of mild-mannered managerialism, a bland, beige party that sits in the middle whilst others discuss big ideas. This is not what we should offer Britain. To quote Nick Clegg’s recent Bloomberg speech: “I want people to know that we have our own distinct vision, based our own distinct values – a liberal belief in opportunities; a liberal faith in people’s talents and ambitions.” That’s what we are about, and SEFS does not offer this.
SEFS is also electorally unhelpful. It positions us as a party that is a bit like the Tories, a bit like Labour. Most Tory-leaning voters will not consider a party like Labour; most Labour-leaning voters will not consider a party like the Tories. But they will listen to an experienced party that offers something different.
“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”
The preamble to our constitution is a little long to be our slogan, but the values expressed in it should be the starting point for our choice, the glue that holds together our offer to the British people. We should be proclaiming our liberal vision of 21st century Britain, not offering more of the same. The party urgently needs to produce a slogan that captures this vision, starting from our desire to create a free and fair society.
There is no problem with being On Message, In Volume, Over Time – message discipline is important, especially in the run-up to an election. But let’s get the message right – starting with our slogan.
William Barter is a party activist in Cambridge. Sian Reid is a Lib Dem councillor in Cambridge and former council leader. David Grace is a former Westminster and European parliament candidate.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
32 Comments
Talking of the Preamble, I’m proud to see Liberal Democrats marching at Pride events with LGBT+ Lib Dems‘ “Freedom From Conformity” banner 🙂
“And in 2015 it looks increasingly likely that we will offer to “build a stronger economy and a fairer society, enabling everyone to get on in life” (SEFS). ”
Sick bag anyone?
The SEFS slogan is, at the same time, not what the Liberal Democrats stand for and what everyone in British politics stands for. It is insipidly, uninspiringly and totally aliberal.
I’m not being funny but we must be able to find a space for “The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.” on every Focus leaflet and campaign letter we put out. Which campaigns can be more vital to Britain in 2015 than this?
And if we need something that is both shorter and draws a line under the compromises of the coalition period what is better than ‘A fairer economy AND a stronger society’?
This is a campaign and a message all non-SEFS bubble Liberal Democrats can unite behind.
It is a message the leadership would do well to listen to should they have any interest in leading a more united and philosophically coherent party into the 2015 general election.
“The SEFS slogan is, at the same time, not what the Liberal Democrats stand for and what everyone in British politics stands for. It is insipidly, uninspiringly and totally aliberal.”
But it is what the leadership stands for, and therein lies the problem. Had Nick Clegg been more explicit about his values he would not have been elected Leader. I agree with and appreciate the contribution of the author’s, though fear it’s now up to the electorate to offer their view – they are much more enlightened than in 2010.
I don’t think we can start with the slogan.
“The Real Alternative” in 2005 resonated with voters – it picked up on our unique opposition to the Iraq war, and positioned us as genuinely different from “the two old parties”. Good slogan, but the policies and the positioning came first.
“Change that Works for You” in 2010 was perhaps a poorer slogan, but again it had some resonance. It conveyed the ideas of our (ill-starred) constitutional reform programme in the wake of the expenses scandal. Again, the fact that we had a novel programme to offer the voters came first, the slogan second.
It’s certainly true that SEFS stands for a non-offer of a non-programme to the voters, and that they are liable to respond with a non-Lib Dem vote. However, our Preamble, though well-written and inspirational, also fails to connect to anything very much that we actually have on offer to the voters just right now. (Apart from gay marriage, that is: and I don’t think we can build a whole governmental platform on gay marriage alone).
We certainly could put forward a programme that deserved to be called a “Liberal Vision”. It would have to include things like a big Green Tax Switch, an end to secretive state surveillance, a rolling back of the excessive powers of big business over employees and customers, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, an onslaught on poverty and youth unemployment, and a new regional policy to shift excessive power and wealth from London to the rest of Britain. But we are not proposing such a programme, and an empty slogan which suggests otherwise will not help.
Cleggism, I fear, means five more years propping up right-wing government. There is no good slogan for that.
Few people know what the Lib Dems stand for so I agree this needs addressing.
It isn’t good enough to have beliefs and values which could equally be adopted by the other parties, which is what the ‘preamble’ is.
Being liberal on economic issues and being liberal on social issues means we are right wing on economics and left wing on social issues. That does not make us a centre party but a liberal party (small ‘L’).
It would be more punchy in the media to revert to being the Liberal Party rather than the Liberal (and Social) Democrat Party – but that is probably not do-able at present. We are after all a coalition within the party.
As a slogan I suggest:
Being Liberal means Small Goverment with a Big Heart
with a strap line
Free markets, Free Schooling, Free Health, Individual Freedom and Care for those who can’t look after themselves.
I agree with the OP. SEFS is a hideously bland slogan that Labour and even the Tories might credibly use. (Not to mention the objection that, instead of getting stronger, the economy flatlined for three years before being artificially inflated for the election!)
Good article folks!
Just want to endorse my Cambridge friends and colleagues here.
The fact that we got a response that said “oh but it isn’t just SEFS, it’s also ‘enabling everyone to get on in life'” was ludicrous. The letter came from Nick, by the way.
“A fair, free and open society without poverty, ignorance or conformity.”?
I’d rather be part of a “split-the-difference party of mild-mannered managerialism, a bland, beige party that sits in the middle whilst others discuss big ideas.” than one based on spite, prejudice, scapegoating and division. I often think when the worst criticisms people can come up with of centrism is that t is mild mannered then I’m doing a pretty good job.
The idea that centrists sit in the middle whilst others discuss big ideas is also wrong. I’ve outflanked most of the left with the idea of the wealth cap and most of the right for the past few years with calls for higher interest rates. Centrists have big ideas too.
Above all, the main problem with the article is that it still doesn’t tell the public what the Lib Dems believe in. It seems to replace centrism between a party divided by economic and social liberalism. You’ll have a bunch of activists saying in the media “we are on the left on the economy” and a bunch of activists saying “we are on the right”. It’s just confusing.
Regards
FREEDOM FROM ORGANISED CRIME – Legalisation & Licensing of marijuana products; assylum for trafficked humans;
FREEDOM FROM POOR HOUSING – Massive investment in building Council Housing so nearly all on low incomes have an expectation of low rents .
FREEDOM FROM PREJUDICE – equalising tax arrangements/ next of kin rights for all forms of families, be they same-sex couples, single parent, married or co-habiting.
FREEDOM FROM LONDON – Federalisation of powers to the Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland and English regions with minimal interference from Westminster.
Go for the freedom thing, it would distinguish us quite starkly from the Labservatives – it’s certainly something we can enthuse about, but I don’t know what the strapline is though.
Instead of trying to be all things to all people, Liberal Democrats should put their most controversial ideas first, draw wide lines between the Lib Dems and other parties, and offer a vision for the future that is dramatically different from the present. This will not win the Lib Dems a majority, but that’s not on offer anyway. What it will do is attract passionate, enthusiastic people who are moved by the idea of a Liberal Britain and see it as the kind of country where they want to live and raise their children.
And if the Party can’t articulate what a Liberal Britain would look like (other than having more Liberal Democrats in positions of power) then there’s the Party’s basic problem.
By the way, there are lots of powerful criticisms of centrism, but you need to decide what you stand for. It would be a good honest and tough debate if someone said “I believe in this and this is why I don’t like SEFS”, but if you pretty much just say “we don’t like SEFS” then it comes across as quite weak.
I hope that is fine. I just mean if you say “I’m against this because I’m in favour of this” then it is a lot more powerful than “I’m against this because it’s not radical enough, but it doesn’t matter which way so much, as long as it is radical”.
Best wishes
OK to answer some of these points…
Stronger Economy is not something Labour can claim, and this is widely recognised. Fairer society is not something the Conservatives can claim and this is widely recognised. So this is not a slogan that could be credibly used by the other parties. It’s weakness perhaps is that it concedes half the goal to each of the other parties – ignoring Labour’s capture by a very narrow interest group, and Conservative lunacy on the EU for example. But that is harder to get across and we have to use what volume we have efficiently.
Furthermore what SEFS is an important reminder of is the squeeze message. You may not be interested in a fairer society, but if you let Labour in that is a big threat to the economy. And vice versa, and put diplomatically. Even if we were back at 23% but didn’t emphasise this point we wouldn’t win many seats.
“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.” Is SEFS the best summary of this? No. In 4 words, we could go for “fair, free and open”, although that might get a lot of blank looks. But does it capture some of these values? Yes. The word “fairer” for example. With fairer and stronger this means not being enslaved by poverty. To say this is an empty slogan is just wrong. “Change that works for you”? I suppose that suggests something about listening and reform, but it seems pretty bland to me.
Considering how difficult it is to get anything much at all into a slogan, and compared with election slogans generally, SEFS is replete with values.
What about “Fairer economy, stronger society”? Well a fairer economy may be weaker. Do you want to offer the squeezed middle no respite, just reassurance that others will share their pain more? And a stronger society may be less fair. If everybody knows their place you may have a strong society, but not a fair or liberal one. FESS is a much less liberal slogan than SEFS.
I suspect this is not really about the slogan it is a debate about centrist or equidistant positioning.
Slogans are always a bit naff so subjecting them to too much analysis is always flawed (New Labour New Britain anyone?)
The meat is in the manifesto which based on the pre-annoucements so far is bland, unambitiious, centrist tripe lacking any sort of radical ideal. Nick is a leader who seems to want to inherit the system not change it.
Backed up by a disappointing record in government – less political reform in government than we saw in the 97-01 Blair government influenced by Cook-Maclennan there is a lot to do to get my support never mind anyone elses.
“Stronger Economy is not something Labour can claim, and this is widely recognised. Fairer society is not something the Conservatives can claim and this is widely recognised.”
I think Labour and Conservative supporters would strongly disagree with you on those respective points,
The economy did a lot better in 1997-2010 than it has done 2010-2014 and regarding the “fairer society” claim the LDs are caught up in the same old bind of Coalition politics, if you want to claim 2010-2014 saw society getting fairer then the Conservatives as the senior partner are entitled to claim the lion’s share of the credit.
Instead we have the transparently self-serving position that all the bad things the Coalition have done are solely the fault of the Conservatives and all the good things are solely the work of the LDs, which discredits the very notion of Coalition politics and in turn scuppers any chance of meaningful electoral reform as well as reflecting very badly on the LDs themselves.
All of which digresses from my main point that SEFS is poor slogan as it is completely platitudinous, both Labour and the Conservatives (not to mention the Greens, the Communists and presumably the MRLP too) genuinely believe their policies will deliver SEFS , the Law of the Nonsensical Reverse applies strongly here.
The other point of course is for many people their experience of of the Coalition government has been the exact opposite of SEFS, with three years of economic stagnation coupled with austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich. Any claims of “fairer society” are going to ring very hollow to anybody who has suffered through the likes of the Bedroom Tax and Workfare, policies which were only implemented with the support (sometime enthusiastically) of the LDs. Trying to blame it all on the Tories now is the political equivalent of saying “some big boys did it and run away” and is clearly getting similarly short shrift from the electorate.
Passing through, I’m not suggesting that the slogan delivers an easy win. Our opponents will always have their attack lines, largely disingenuous, but that should not make us run away.
Yes Labour and the Conservatives might claim the slogan, but not with any credibility. Green, Communists, UKIP etc even less so.
“Weaker economy” is not nonsensical when Labour oversaw a disasterous crash following a debt bubble that they appear to want to repeat. Weaker economy is one of the options at the election. “Unfairer society” is similarly one of the options – we know if there were any tax cutting in purely Tory hands it would be for the better off, not for low and middle earners. You say austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich, but the numbers don’t back you. We have a much fairer tax system than there was under Labour, and welfare savings have been limited compared to departmental spending. Don’t confuse the effects of a smaller pie (thanks to Labour) with the effects of government priorities. And check out the lowest gini index for decades.
Sure this has not been got across, and it needs to be. Do the Conservatives deserve some credit? Sure they do. Though they have hardly shed so much blood for it as we have. And it is perverse to argue from the left that the Conservatives deserve more credit for greater fairness than the Liberal Democrats do.
At least SEFS distinguishes Lib Dems from all those other parties who are calling for a weak economy and an unfair society.
Joe Otten – The basic problem there is fairness for whom? I would find it extremely difficult for example to justify the pension triple lock on the basis of fairness. I would find it very difficult to talk about housing market fairness. Indeed I would not be entirely confident calling the EU fair. Whilst the Coalition and the LD part of it can point to some meaningful achievements there are an awful people out there who have felt it minimally.
Nick Clegg talked about a group called alarm-clock Britain. It was a shame that his turn of phrase was clumsy because he was onto something there. There never was a golden age and anyone who thinks there was is muddle-headed. However the nagging sense I have is that more and more our capitalism is great for those that have capital. For those not so fortunate the picture is less clear.
What is clear is that a lot of people out there want change – just it isn’t clear what sort of change it is they want. It is this wish for change that I think saw Ed M’s energy bill policy strike a chord across the political spectrum – it was something plainly against the grain of 30 years of trusting the market and it looked and felt like change.
We are where we are as a result of successive governments. The problems we face are not solely the fault of any political party and perhaps it is not possible to have, ‘fairness for all.’ But the group that politics is losing is young, insecure, living in an overpriced buy-to-let, paying tuition debt and not accessing any of the ringfenced areas. That’s the group that wants change most and that’s the group that will, in time, be critical for all parties. It’s basically alarm-clock Britain, just no one recognised it when Clegg said it.
In a recent YouGov poll, only 25% of self-identified Liberal Democrats said that they expected their household finances to improve in the next 12 months. The rest expect either no change (46%) or a deterioration in their finances (27%). Labour supporters were somewhat more pessimistic, Conservatives somewhat more optimistic.
And the wisdom of crowds is proven again. For the last 4 years, the QE practiced by the BoE and the government has resulted in the assets of the rich increasing sharply in value (e.g. property and equities) while the value of the primary asset of the poor – their labour – has fallen significantly in real terms.
The “Stronger Economy” line does not resonate with peoples’ personal experiences and expectations. And an economy that is arranged to make the rich richer while the poor scrape by does not sound like the basis for a “Fairer Society”.
A radical vision of a fairer economy would be nice, but it is simply not credible for Mr. Clegg to announce a radical platform.
The future of the parliamentary party is in the hands of local campaigners who can return MPs in spite of the central party and its messages, not because of them.
Paul Pettinger 22nd Aug ’14 – 3:48pm
“But it is what the leadership stands for, and therein lies the problem …”
Paul, I am 100% in agreement but if NC is determined to stay ‘in office’ and recognising that the moment has probably now passed for him to be removed, the best compromise for the party as a whole is that we fight as a united party of LIBERAL Democrats. It is not where I personally wished to be but the best we can do to minimise our losses next year (some might say to go down fighting) is for us to unite behind a renewed vision for a Liberal Britain.
@David Allen 22nd Aug ’14 – 3:49pm
“Change that Works for You” in 2010 ” I must admit, I had forgotten that … perhaps the writing was already on the wall even then!
“Cleggism, I fear, means five more years propping up right-wing government. There is no good slogan for that.” … How about ‘Over my dead body’ or ‘Not in my name mate’ spring to mind. If he tried that, he would have to be removed immediately or the party would simply implode.
@David Evershed 22nd Aug ’14 – 4:16pm
Sorry (actually I’m not!) David, anything containing the phase “Free markets” is unlikely to resonate well with the majority of Lib Dem members, supporters or voters. We remain the party of free trade etc but colloquially free markets would be taken to mean something much closer to ‘authentic’ Thatcher-Browne-ism than Liberalism or Liberal Democracy. The freedom of the markets has massively widened the gap between the global corporations, the very rich and the rest of us.
Meanwhile over @David-1 22nd Aug ’14 – 5:09pm … YES!
@Joe Otten 22nd Aug ’14 – 5:20pm
“Stronger Economy is not something Labour can claim, and this is widely recognised. Fairer society is not something the Conservatives can claim and this is widely recognised.”
As Liberals I’m sure we can fully agree but from a Labour, Tory or even UKIP standpoint, they would genuinely believe they do … ‘we would have a much stronger economy if we didn’t let in all these Europeans taking our jobs and housing – its just not fair’!
Re “What about “Fairer economy, stronger society”? Well a fairer economy may be weaker. Do you want to offer the squeezed middle no respite, just reassurance that others will share their pain more? And a stronger society may be less fair. If everybody knows their place you may have a strong society, but not a fair or liberal one.”
Take your point Joe but I would argue that placing the emphasis on a stronger economy is not inherently fair or Liberal either. There are more examples of fairer more egalitarian economies delivering stronger more coherent societies than the other way round. As Liberal Democrats we would hardly be fighting for illiberal flat line equality (=conformity) would we!
I think one of the strengths of reversing the words is that it suggests we have listened and, free from our enforced coalition compromises, have reverted back to our more radical traditional position.
And Eddie before you kick off about my use of the word Radical, I proudly use this exclusively in its traditional Liberal sense!
The ‘Cambridge’ debate is a very useful one to have. It is something we should have been afforded as a party before we were marched off towards some Centrist aliberal utopia !!!
As Paul Pettinger went on to say, “Had Nick Clegg been more explicit about his values he would not have been elected Leader”. Indeed.
The point surely is that few Voters expect us to form a Government on our own. What they want to know from us is how a Coalition with our Party is better than a Tory/Labour Government. SEFS does that, it says that we wouldnt allow Labour to wreck the Economy again or let the Tories pile all the costs of reform on the poor.
Hi Stephen, I certainly wouldn’t be looking to kick off over your use of the word radical (I’m trying to reduce my tantrums), I just got the impression that a better article would be to say that they want a social liberal party, why they want it and possibly what they are going to do about it, rather than make a big deal out of the slogan.
From a left (but not Labour sympathising) position, it’s incredible to read the old tropes about how NuLab presided over a global crash. Did the coalition cede control of global finances (silently) or, perhaps, did the UK never have it?
That’s not to let NuLab off the hook, for they could & should have regulated far more stringently. Oddly though, even Vince Cable’s (valid) criticisms of economic policy applied by one Gordon Brown seemed come mainly with the benefit of hindsight. It’s not at all obvious that the effects of the global crash on the UK would have been significantly different had Vince Cable been chancellor pre-2008 (or even Osborne).
See http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/is-vince-cables-economic-reputation-fully-deserved/1098
It seems to me that you are happy with the ‘FS’ part of the message, but not the ‘SE’. In truth, they are interdependent —
a fairer society is not obtainable unless the economy is put right. If all we’re aiming to promote is fairness, why shouldn’t voters choose Labour; if a successful economy is all we cared about, they might as well vote Tory? It is the combination of the two which is a challenge to deliver, but worth striving for.
@Joe Otten “Weaker economy” is not nonsensical when Labour oversaw a disasterous crash following a debt ”
After 11 years of economic growth and as noted the crash was global and due to just the sort of policies of deregulation championed by the COnservatives and the Orange LDs of the “strong economy” side of that overly-simplistic narrative. Add to which the economy was growing again by the time of the GE in 2010. In comparison the ill-judged “Plan A” of Osborne stalled the recovery and delivered 3 years of stagnation whereas the likes of the US and Germany have been growing all the whle, On these very pages the argument is made that it was only through the LDs quietly persuading the Tories to abandon Plan A and adopt Cable’s “Plan C” that the recovery arrived at all. The problem is Plan C looks like a lot like Ball’s Plan B so the LDs remain shy of taking the credit as would validate Ball’s criticisms and would concede the initial Plan A was an error. This has meant the Tories have made all the running in claiming austerity worked.
“You say austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich, but the numbers don’t back you”
But the numbers do back me. The government’s own figures show that after every budget the poorest decile did worse than the second poorest decile who did worse than the third poorest and so on all the way up to the second richest decile. The exception is that the very richest decile has done about as badly as the very poorest, although with a decent accountant you do wonder how much of that they simply avoided.
Check for yourself the Treasury’s “distributional impact of of tax and welfare changes on households” for each budget.
The other point is if a millionaire is 5% worse off one year then they are still very very rich, take away 5% of the income of someone on JSA and they are looking at a choice between a food bank and starvation so even if the pain was distributed exactly equally the outcome would still be unfair.
And this is the big flaw in the SEFS slogan, existing LD voters may believe but it is never going to convince an undecided
voter as long as their personal experiences differ and until that point s grasped the LDs will continue to bump along the polls in the single digits.
It seems to me that your difficulty now is that the gap between your actions (performance in government) and your rhetoric (cant about “a vision”; the words at the beginning of your constitution) is now so great that any manifesto or slogan which you come up with is likely to be pretty meaningless.
However, if you want to sum up, in a few words, your objectives for 2015 and beyond, what about this, from the prospectus of one of the companies floated at the time of the South Sea Bubble:
“For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is”
or this, paraphrased from “King Lear”:
“We shall do such things – what they are we know not; but they shall be the terrors of the earth.”?
When I hear the oft repeated, ‘ what is our core message ‘, I wince, because I know what’s coming. The end result is usually some utterly meaningless, [ …. Vision for the Future….!!…] message, that could just as easily be replaced with,…. ‘ To boldly go where no man has gone before ‘.
Such limp, evangelical messages are a complete turn off. And for what it’s worth, evangelists that turn up to my door, get very little of my time.
Is it not plausible, that voters first want to see some contrition.?
How about [… WE did some things right, WE got some things wrong, WE now know the difference…. ]
I’m only half joking, because at least it gives the impression that you may have learned *something* from your 4 years of Government apprenticeship?
That quote from the preamble resonates with many people who might vote for us. We did surprisingly well in a shoestring campaign in a by-election recently, party because of the candidate – but she featured that quote prominently on her one leaflet and had people saying positively,”I didn’t know Liberal Democrats believed that!”
The stronger/fairer bit I think is not a bad slogan as far as it goes, but it doesn’t inspire. The parroted phrase about everybody getting on in life sound like we’re all about individual material advancement, promotion and higher pay (which is what “getting on in life” is generally taken to mean) and offers little to old people who, we should not forget, vote.
@John Dunn
“How about [… WE did some things right, WE got some things wrong, WE now know the difference…. ]”
Dangerously radical stuff. But, with the current steering team lashed to the wheel,who is going to believe the last bit?
So, this is us, but it’s too long: “The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”
so how about extracting something like “fair, free and open”, or “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.” The latter could be made positive, rather than negative, with something like: “equality, education, diversity”, but frankly that’s bland, and I prefer “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”
I could just about swallow an ideal of no-one being enslaved by poverty. It isn’t a totally realistic policy frankly, some people will always be poorer than everyone else in capitalism, but who could argue against attempting to alleviate poverty?
But abolishing ignorance, even if it is another of Beveridge’s five “giant evils” , is ridiculous. Some people LIKE being ignorant.
As for being slaves to conformity , well one gives up.
How about addressing the really big problems we have a society? Like our relative economic decline? Our lack of sovereignty? The atomisation of society along ethnic and religious lines and increasing social dislocation and absence of cohesion? The level of crime and violence in our streets? The appalling bifurcation of education along class and wealth lines leading to less social mobility than in the fifties? The gross mismanagement of the NHS? The fact that we can no longer afford to pay for people not to work who easily could? (Not exactly what Beveridge had in mind). The crisis in social care for the elderly? Uncontrolled immigration? The fact that we can’t afford to defend ourselves against any potential enemies and are building an aircraft carrier to sail without any aircraft?
You have no credible policies to solve our myriad problems as a nation, and this sad little motherhood and apple pie vision statement is an embarrassment, I am afraid.
Most of your ‘really big problems’ are either symptoms of poverty, like the social care for the elderly problem, or of forced conformity, like the ethnic and religious atomisation problem.
You may well enjoy your ignorance, but when it is deployed to justify kneejerk policies standing in glorious isolation from any reality or coherence, then we all are enslaved by it.