Mark Pack’s January report to members

Farage and Musk are the past, not the future

Seeing someone called a “snivelling cretin” may reinforce all your worst fears about social media. But when it was Elon Musk saying this of Ed Davey, it counts as a badge of honour.

It also illustrates a bigger, and more important, point than ‘look how thin skinned and short of things to say a billionaire is when anyone stands up to him’.

It is about how little to say about our future the likes of Nigel Farage and Elon Musk have beyond nostalgia for an imagined version of our past. For all Elon Musk’s facade as a visionary man of the future, much of his vision is a shrunken, twisted piece of fake nostalgia: a world where the super-rich get to run things, democracy is an optional extra, international borders are high and only his favoured few select demographic categories are worthy people.

Their joint desire to turn the clock backwards is in contrast to our positive liberal vision for a better future. Just because someone is not like me is not a reason to dislike them. Just because someone has different views of religion than me is not a reason to fear them. And just because someone lives in a different country from me is not a reason to treat them as an enemy.

The likes of Farage and Musk excel at grabbing the headlines, but the quiet reality of 2024 was a year in which in Britain us Liberal Democrats took more political power. We won more council seats than the Conservatives and Reform combined in May – and then we had our best general election result in a century, gaining far more seats than Reform, in July.

General Election Review

An important part of building on those successes is our General Election Review, which was headed up by Tim Farron.

Thank you to Tim and the whole team for turning around the review promptly, so that we can get stuck into implementing its lessons as soon as practical in this Parliamentary cycle.

As with the post-2019 review, this one has been shared with all party members because, even though this review is a happier one, it is important once again that members can hold to account those in power at all levels of the party on delivering the review’s recommendations. As Tim explained in the email to members, there are some further recommendations on membership to follow.

The review is asking Federal Conference Committee (FCC) for time to present their findings to our Federal Spring Conference in Harrogate. Alongside that, the Federal Board has agreed to draw up an implementation plan for the recommendations, and you will get more news on that through these monthly reports.

Party Awards

Our Spring Federal Conference in Harrogate is now coming up fast. Which also means it is time to nominate wonderful colleagues for our next round of Party Awards too.

You can read about which awards are up this time, and how to make nominations, here.

Registrations for conference, both in person and online, are also open. I hope to see many of you there.

Congratulations to…

North Devon Liberal Democrats were the top recruiting local party in England in December, topping the charts for the second month running. All but one of the new members were recruited locally by them – giving the party’s local bank balance a handy boost too as local parties receive larger membership payments for locally recruited (or renewed) members.

Congratulations too to the top local recruiters in Scotland – Dumfriesshire and Highlands local parties, tied with each other – and in Wales – Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.

Could it be you?

Winning public elections is central to our reason for existing as a political party. Running our own internal elections well is central to our being a democratic party. One of the important posts in achieving that is the Federal Returning Officer, and we are advertising for applicants as the three year term of office ends later this year. Details of the role and how to apply by 4 February here.

Further internal party elections and other party news

The Board has also agreed the timetable for the big round of Federal Committee, President and Vice President elections this autumn. You can read it here.

The Federal Board will also be proposing to Federal Spring Conference some changes to our internal election regulations. The changes are based on the recommendations from the big review carried out by Nick Manners, which consulted widely across the party. The Board then also ran a more recent, more specific, consultation on how best to implement some of the details of what the Manners Review had recommended. Thank you to everyone who took part in either or both of those consultations.

The Board report to Conference will include full details of the proposed changes along with the reasons for them. The change that is likely to be of the widest interest is the proposal to increase from 10 to 20 the number of nominations from party members required to stand for various party roles.

The reason for this is that both the Manners Review and the General Election Review recommended moves of this sort in order to help address the common complaint from members that there are too many candidates to choose between for some party committee contests, making voting confusing and harder. The consultation the Board carried out also showed general support for some increase, and so the Board decided to put forward a relatively small increase with its impact then to be reviewed after the elections.

The Board report will also cover a very short constitutional amendment the Board is proposing to how Liberal Democrats Limited operates, in order to provide the scope for directors with relevant expertise to be appointed in case we wish to use the Limited company for a wider range of purposes.

In my August report I reported that, “The party has also decided not to spend money defending a case about our previous complaints system taken by Natalie Bird. We have already acknowledged the problems with that system by replacing it entirely with a new complaints system, run by different volunteers and supported by different staff. The potential legal costs here were just disproportionate; we have chosen to spend the money instead on staff and campaigning.”

A costs hearing has now been held and the judge has ruled that, due to a failure to engage properly with the party’s earlier offers to settle the case, her costs claim will be reduced by 10% and the party will also receive its costs since August last year.

Next steps in the party’s strategy

As I reported last time, work is underway on developing our new strategy for this Westminster Parliamentary cycle, alongside the policy review being run by the Federal Policy Committee (FPC).

The Board has asked Federal Conference Committee for a chance to consult with members at the Harrogate conference. In addition, you can book a 75 minute Zoom call for the members of your local or regional party to discuss our strategy plans with me by dropping an email to [email protected].

 

* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News and Op-eds.
Advert

13 Comments

  • William Wallace 22nd Jan '25 - 11:55am

    I’ve just been reading Michael Bloch’s biography of Jeremy Thorpe, which notes at one point that in 1959 Thorpe had built up the North Devon Association to 4000 members in 38 branches. I hope we’re nearing that figure again!

  • Paul Barker 22nd Jan '25 - 6:02pm

    On the question of complacency, I don’t think we can directly compare our Vote now with Pre-Coalition times, the Electorate now are more fragmented. We have moved from Three-Party politics to Five or Six Parties. Its the same Pie but cut more ways.

  • @William Wallace, poor Mark will have to buy the party a hovercraft next!

  • We need to (re-)learn how to campaign against Labour. We have done it before, leading to what’s now our second best ever election result in terms of seats in 2005, which is the only GE ever in which we won a significant haul of seats from Labour. So it’s not inevitable that we do less well when Labour is in power and unpopular. We could and should have continued the 2005 trend in 2010, but we ran a poor campaign which was only saved (sort of) by Cleggmania (which also had its downside because it got local parties carried away and led to the de facto abandonment of targeting in favour of “one more heave”). We should not have lost seats to Labour in 2010, simple as that.

  • We targeted effectively in 2024 and 1997; we didn’t in 1983, when the more than doubling of the Alliance vote share over the Liberal vote share in 1979 came from (what was left of) the national media hype surrounding the SDP. The few Parliamentary gains we made in 1983 were the result of strong local campaigns.

    “One more heave” has never worked for us; not in 1983, nor 1974, nor 2010. Which of the two big parties was in {a|de}scendency isn’t so important. The result in 2005 shows that we can do well against a Labour government that is losing popularity. If we had continued with the 2005 strategy then we would probably have done even better in 2010, winning a further haul of seats from Labour.

  • 1. Our seat tally at GEs is scarcely correlated with our percentage of vote.

    2. If we increased our percentage vote 5% in every constituency in the country, this would win us 10 more seats on the strong assumption the party we are competing with in our marginal constituencies loses all of that 5%. So in reality, gaining 5% in every constituency would win us less than 10 new seats.6 would be a more realistic total..

    So AIMING for an increase in national vote share is very inefficient in seat terms.

    3. It’s much better to do it the other way round. We were serious competitors in around 80 seats at the last election. If we concentrated resources on our top 160 seats and increased vote share by 15% in each, this would increase our national vote share by only around 2%. But it would certainly win us significantly more than 6 new seats.

    So we should think of increased national vote share as a side-effect of increasing the number of seats where we are serious competitors.

    It’s simply not true that the LDs necessarily do badly at GEs when Labour is in power: 2001 and 2005 both saw increased seats. And even if it WERE true, that would be no reason to think this putative truth was immutable.

    BTW All our “wealthy” seats have pockets of deprivation, where the party wins a lot of support. All wealthy seats also have many struggling middle class voters.

  • Point 2 is badly explained: I mean if we increased our vote share by 15% in the 80 newly competitive seats – seats 81-160, then we’d have a 2% increase in national vote, but also many new seats.

  • I mean point 3!!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Jack Nicholls
    I would accept the basic thrust of this argument but for one thing - the problematic creed you identify is not liberalism, though I agree it gets mislabelled as...
  • nigel hunter
    If we have to turn away from US protection those 2 aircraft carriers MUST be fully active as an umbrella for all of Europe.The effort to make them fully service...
  • Christopher Haigh
    @SimonR, quite agree with you. China is undemocratic and a massive polluter with its obsession with coal mining. Vince however, seems to be obsessed with tradin...
  • Anthony Acton
    Thank you Vince Cable for this. The Brexit debate was always about a strategic choice between Europe and the USA. We chose USA. What a disaster. Only the LDs h...
  • Thelma Davies
    Theakes; 'We're in the south to help and protect the Afghan people to reconstruct their economy and democracy. We would be perfectly happy to leave again in t...