Vince Cable recently said that if Lib Dems can “occupy that enormous ground in the middle of politics we’ve got tremendous opportunity”.
He’s only part right. To occupy is to inhabit a space that is otherwise vacant. There is a missing middle in British politics but that’s the point – it’s missing. There’s nothing there to inhabit. First it needs to be built in terms of a reality in Parliament and an idea based vision. This requires leadership.
So before Vince gets carried away with talk of the “political winds blowing in the Lib Dem’s favour” he would do well to remember that 7.4 per cent of the vote and 12 MPs isn’t much to work with. It’s a stump – and the centre ground cannot be rebuilt by it in its current form. He should then ask: Who are the Lib Dems? What are they for?
Here are the answers he should come up with. The Liberal Democrats are the party of the radical centre, not some confused wet-lettuce centrism.
They stand for a democracy that is devolved to powerful cities and regions because when politics is closer to the people it’s more responsive to the people.
They stand for a reformed electoral system that is representative rather than discriminatory.
They stand for an elected upper chamber because the House of Lords is bloated and undemocratic.
They stand for legalising cannabis not so everyone can spend their days smoking hash but to regulate a market that takes the dangerous stuff off the streets, helps those with addictions and removes the profit for gangs. All this whilst tax receipts flow to the exchequer.
They stand for radical long-term settlements on care and the NHS because playing the ‘We’re promising more money than the others’ game solves nothing. (Broader thinking is needed on entitlements more generally so that those who gain more pay more. It’s unfair that poorer taxpayers subsidise something from which they don’t benefit).
They stand for maintaining close ties with the EU and its single market because it’s stupid to bang on about the unreality of taking control of our money, laws and borders whilst ignoring the economic and regulatory realities of trade.
They stand for an economy that combines enterprise with equality because that’s how a free-market economy fosters a free, open society.
In the election campaign little was made of most of these principles. The electorate couldn’t answer the ‘Who?’ and the ‘What for?’ questions. If the next leader is to have a chance in rebuilding the centre-ground then they must start with vision and dispense with plucky gimmicks. Proudly giving the case for the party’s main standing points would be a start.
That won’t be enough. It is imperative that the new centre-ground takes stock of the political psychology behind seemingly intolerant backlashes. Brexit was a response from those who have a group based identity; who fear rapid change; who feel removed from a de-industrialised country where having a degree is the only ticket to success; who are geographically immobile thus unnerved by immigration. Their worries have been left, festering for too long. The result? We are living through it. Political chaos.
Therefore, for the new middle to emerge it must (as political psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues) empathise with the moral tenets: group loyalty, authority and the belief that ‘sacred’ ideas that should be off-limits. Connecting with issues of injustice and suffering is important but it ought be combined with action that understands more conservative feelings.
However, there is little purpose in developing such a vision without the numbers in Parliament. The potential is there and the ground fertile. One commentator rightly argued that the election result was not a vote for two-party politics but rather ‘none of the above politics’ – people are screaming for something different.
Labour’s success in the election was based on sentiment. Corbyn was the beacon of hope against May’s cold detachment. Class based loyalty is on the ebb with Labour winning over the wealthy middle class and Conservatives gaining with the working class. In short, the glue is melting and support is fickle.
Centre rooted MPs are frustrated. Tory moderates are at a loss, watching the party shoot each other over Europe, ignoring domestic plights – and the suffering behind them. Meanwhile, so-called ‘blairites’ witness, jaws-dropped, their leadership throw away the case for remaining in the single market.
The people are there. They just need a real alternative. The likes of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry, Liz Kendall and Alison McGovern, all preach from similar hymn sheets.
So Vince. You are right about the opportunity in the missing middle, but occupation is a big word for a small party.
The Liberal Democrats have risen from the ashes before. Still, if the party really wants to occupy the centre ground it’s got to build it first.
We must, we can – so we will.
* Will Parker is a Liberal Democrat member in Winchester. He is studying History and Politics at the University of Exeter and also writes at notboliticspolitics.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
77 Comments
Our core vote is less than 7.4%.
Many of the 7.4% votes were tactical votes.
There is a very high churning of Lib Dem voters between elections.
In my view there are so few core Lib Dem voters because our liberal philosophy is not spelt out clearly enough and most people don’t know what Lib Dems stand for.
The oft quoted premble to the constitution could be equally true of Conservative or Labour parties.
Lib Dems need to set out a clear economic and social liberal philosophy before we can advance policies which are clear, consistent and distinctive. This will mean losing some Labour Lite members who are not economic liberals but at least we could then start to build a core vote on sound principles.
There are times when I think that my life has taken a wrong turn and that I should have spent my days smoking hash.
The big problem your list is that it talks about what we stand for not why we stand for it.
I am 58 years old this year. I was born in Bromley and brought up in Orpington. My father campaigned with Eric Lubbock. He was treasurer of the local party. I grew up campaigning. I have seen false dawn after false dawn over the years. I have seen our party climb from 6 seats to 57 and back to 8.
Greens know why they are in politics
Labour certainly is able to communicate their “why”
The Tories definitely know their “why”
We have to get people to buy into out “why” before we backfill with what we would do.
It frustrates me greatly that for years and years we have had the right answers for our country but people don’t understand why we exist in politics. Our core vote is much smaller than it should be because of it.
So let’s actually spend time explaining why we are Liberal Democrats not just what we will do.
This *is* “confused wet-lettuce centrism”
We need to be advocating liberalism first and foremost, not saying “we’re the same as Anna Soubry and Liz Kendall”, both of whom may be centrist, but neither of whom are remotely liberal.
David you don’t get to say who is In the party; neither do you get to set the policies. You can state your case for the small state and personal freedom ; you can even claim to be liberal, although in my eyes your much more of a libertarian , but unless you can convince a majority of the party to follow your lead you don’t get to set the agenda. As to the party following I see no one leading the libertarian cause and little appetite for the small state.
I agree. We need a convincing philosophy that answers the ‘why’ as well as the ‘who’. I did put a brief reasoning behind the stand points outlined. But I couldn’t have exceeded the word count guidelines anymore!
As for the point that the likes of Anna Soubry aren’t liberal, it depends on your definition. I would argue that tribalism won’t get us out of this state and Anna Soubry is as liberal as you’ll get. Both Anna Soubry, Liz Kendall etc are or have been associated with Lib Dem associated pressure groups such as More United and Open Britain. This shows they are not happy with the status quo. This shows they want something radically different.
My point is that it’s up to us to start thinking and acting on this and attempt to rebuild the missing middle in British politics – and make a success of it.
*Correction: Anna Soubry is as liberal a Conservative that you’ll get!
Radical centrism is an oxymoron IMHO, and this and similar phrases are occurring far too often on LDV for my liking. We might as well talk about angry sloths or savage sheep. Palehorse got it completely right the other day – we need to decide if we’re free market libertarians or social liberals and then we can start communicating with the electorate with some conviction. If we can’t decide, maybe it’s time for a divorce (can we do amicable?) while the stakes are relatively low. I’ve had a draft post on this in progress ever since the election, but real life keeps getting in the way. Manana…
@ Mark Blackburn,
‘Radical centrism is an oxymoron’. I agree. I made a similar point light years away.
However, much to my dismay, I found that sloth bears in areas where I was working, could be very angry and cause lasting damage to humans when provoked! I
to me the liberalism in governmental terms should mean open to scrutiny, fundamentally anti secretive and based on the belief that people are grown up enough to talk to sensibly. The idea of a huge split between the social and economic aspects of liberalism is something foisted on liberals since the Reagan/Thatcher era mostly by the Economic Right. If you look at the history of the Liberal Party it was not really preoccupied with shrinking the state like a bunch of dogmatic zealots.
This is so depressing. Despite all of Vince’s intelligence, experience and insight, it is so difficult to see him as anything other than a short term caretaker leader whilst we work out whether any of our younger MPs has the drive, ideas and inspiration to help the party recover from the damage that Clegg’s poor judgement inflicted during the coalition years.
I don’t think phrases like ‘centrist’ or ‘middle’ help, they are broad brush that mean little to the general public apart from compromise and wishy washy. The public are interested in change, solutions, stable economy, and a safe society to bring up their families. Lords reform and legalising cannabis are side issues that few people care about, and reinforce the opinion that the LD area fringe party. By all means have these policies, but to have them as headline policies in a general election ? Someone mentioned the LD should be either more left or more right and split the party. Why not be more left and more right, when the the need arises ? More government when it is needed, more free market when it is needed. Does being hemmed in the center means dilution compromise and hedging with the other two parties ?
Respect your views, but what platform do you suggest Vince stands on? I think you can be both
RADICAL: i.e. election reform, lords reform, significant devolution – for example a powerful elected mayor in every city; bring whitehall into 21st Century by radically restructuring NHS etc with long term settlements.
AND
CENTRIST: have an economy and fiscal policy that blends enterprise with equality.
You can be radical in a way that drastically haul overs our outdated, bloated institutions such as Whitehall, Parliament, Regionalism, Election system – ALL WHILST you are centrist fiscally – having a FREE MARKET WITH A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE.
Accept if you disagree though – what would you propose?
But agree that we should be pragmatic to the political landscape. At the end of the day of course you’re right voters don’t vote for the Conservatives because they say “we’re the party of the right” – it’s about connecting with their feelings, circumstances etc.
Political leadership needs BOTH: a strategic conscience based vision AND the use of cunning tactics/electioneering to get you there.
‘They stand for radical long-term settlements on care and the NHS because playing the ‘We’re promising more money than the others’ game solves nothing.’
Hold on a moment. If anything it was Theresa May who was talking about radical long-term settlements in this context. OK – a goodly number of people weren’t keen on her settlement, but she was to my mind very right to ask the questions.
The day will come when difficult questions have to be asked. Why triple lock the pension when as a whole pensioners are far from poor? What exactly is so wrong with asking people to look to assets (unearned houseprice wealth in particular) to fund care? Yes, we can and should debate pensions, care, NHS etc. But if I’m being honest it was May, not the LDP who was standing for radicalism on the issue.
Be honest: how many people here were impressed by the Theresa May Estate Agent stunt?
Jackie I agree with you. The triple lock was introduced at a time on great poverty amongst the elderly. That is no longer the case – so you’re right we should review the policy.
Theresa May suggested going to a double lock whilst introducing a social care reform linked to people’s assets. This is linked although different to the point I was making on the NHS more specifically. Norman Lamb recently spoke in Parliament for the for cross party work to come up with a settlement that solves the NHS funding crisis.
I broadly agree with both policies and think we were wrong to dismiss them.
However, the poicies turned out to be such a disaster for May because of way she presented them. Instead of publicising them as a positive, progressive reform that hoped to solve the flaws in social care, she presented them as almost necessary punishments.
So in short, the point was sourced from Lamb – our health spokesperson – and was not related to social care policy – for which we could take lessons from the Conservatives: good policy the success is in how they are presented and perceived.
Thank you Will, we seem to be getting there. Very few people who say we must be clear what Liberal Democrats stand for dare to go on and actually state what that means. We will only make progress if we start to articulate that, and while people may disagree with some details of what you suggest (powerful elected mayors? how about representative proportionally elected councils!) at least you are taking the trouble to spell it out.
Certainly, we need to be clear that we are not defined by centrism. Our policies happen at present to lie between outright socialism and full-blooded capitalism, but that is historical accident. Our values are on a different dimension, founded on respect for the contribution of every individual within a connected, devolved society. Therefore we espouse economic policies that nurture individual potential within the checks and balances of a network of open, tolerant communities.
This is not easy to spell out succinctly because it the future is always difficult to easily describe, until it arrives.
Will Parker – The triple lock we can dispute!
That said I think we agree on substance. You say, ‘Instead of publicising them as a positive, progressive reform that hoped to solve the flaws in social care, she presented them as almost necessary punishments.’ OK – but if the estate agent stunt is the response how does one publicise these ideas? I think that’s what left such a bad taste in the mouth for me. I keep hearing liberals tell me they dislike lazy answers – whatever May did it was not the easy option! And she got whacked for starting a debate this country absolutely needs about care funding.
I’ve no problem with what you are saying. But I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward as your replies suggest.
Thank you, Will Parker. Can you compress all that into an inspirational bumper sticker that sells the Liberal Democrat brand?
@ D. Evershed “This will mean losing some Labour Lite members who are not economic liberals but at least we could then start to build a core vote on sound principles.”
Sorry, Mr. Evershed, but it’s been tried before and found wanting by the Clegg/Laws/Alexander triumverate. All three have lost their seats and the Party’s national vote share went down from 22% in 2010 to 7.8% in 2015.
Have you any other bright ideas instead ?
Will Parker
This is a terrific piece, despite what some say. Welcome to the party. I do not know if you have , in your area , the sort of warm , and enthusiastic welcome you would get from the friendly Nottingham , and other parties I know, but you should.
We need ex- Conservatives. You add a trajectory and knowledge we can do with.
As one of many once upon a time in Labour party activism as a younger political stalwart, I like your stance.
You mention some , many of us would be delighted to welcome to our party.
I first met Anna Soubry years ago , as we are both in Nottingham.
Those who think because she does not conform to their brand of ideological purity , can say all they like about her liberalism or otherwise.
She has been a staunch, admirable , vocal defender of immigrants, immigration, and over many years, gay rights. She toes the party line sometimes, but she is , along with the delightful Heidi Allen, the modern version of the Heseltine and Major types, lost in that party.
As for the Labour figures you bring to the fore, like you, and your Conservative examples too, I have mentioned them before.
If they stay in the Labour party, along with Dan Jarvis, and many others we can see as real friends, it is that they await a better possibility.
The radical centre, moderate centre, or the description of centre left. I like all the above.
Those of us who are that need to stick together.
If I had just £1 for every time someone said we need to explain what Liberalism is about I’d be a wealthy man indeed! The problem is that our aims and values have never been reducible to sound bites.
As to the centre no thank you. Our Liberalism is the antithesis of the authoritarian Labour and Conservative parties. We are at one end of the political spectrum and they are surprisingly close together at the other. (See the late Donald Wade’s book for details) Both want to tell people what’s good for them and we want people to choose for themselves.
Never mind left, right or centre. We must put out our Liberal views so that people see we are different. Take a leaf out of the Canadian Liberal’s book and hold a conversation with people and find out what they want. It worked for them. From a disastrous election and 3rd place to government in 1 election. When are we going to have Justin at our conference to tell us how it’s done!
@ Will Parker
You think electoral and constitutional reform is radical, but I want to radically change society. I would like us to reject orthodoxy. To make reducing inequalities our number one aim, because those at the bottom don’t have the same freedom as those at the top.
Radical policies would include Universal Citizens Income, a return to full employment and an acceptance that the government has to be the employer of last resort, a policy to reduce pay ratios.
Even I can think that more democracy can be radical – all schools run by boards elected by the parents, all GP surgeries run by boards elected by the patients, care homes run by boards elected by the relatives of those living in them, housing associations run by boards elected by residents. (I don’t mean a token person or a few, I mean everyone bar one or two.) If we really wanted to be radical how about no unitary or district councillor can represent an area containing more than 2000 electors? If all the electors have seen their councillor would they be so disconnected from the council? Annual elections for local authorities, scrapping elected majors and scrapping the cabinet system in local government.
I don’t want us to be a party which compromises on our policies and be centralised because we take a position between two other positions, we need to have policies that fix society and give more freedom to those who have less today.
A thought provoking article and beneath it’s speech-like tone lie some ideas which are, judging by some of the comments. hard to take from long-time Libs & Lib-Dems.
I can explain policy points to anyone asking what the LibDems would do given a chance, but so often an unpackaged list of bullet points has been cherry-picked by the other parties and the individual policies sold as their own. It is imperative that the party package their policies in a radical and ‘branded’ way within an ethos that is easy to understand by everyone/anyone. Corbyn finds this a breeze, he has a view of the world into which his policies neatly sit and is very comfortable expounding his world view in language which is clear and unselfconscious. May has the problem of no moral or ethical compass to guide her and is plainly terrified at interviews; the country saw it and many left her.
Will’s point that we have to build our space is well made. The liberals in the Labour and Conservative parties who for some time have felt homeless need a home with a vision. The voters who would a ‘curse on both their houses’ likewise.
The party needs to join the modern world of marketing this vision to the electorate – but first a cohesive, comprehensive and, most important, easily communicated philosophy as a flag to get behind must be drawn up.
@Michael I am with you; liberalism should offer a radical vision of how society can change for the better, or it is nothing. That is why I am struggling with the idea of Vince being anything other than a caretaker leader. The party all too often takes a managerial line to policy, producing sensible sounding and worthwhile policy documents that nuance every decision and lack any political appeal, whilst resisting policy positions that are attractive and clear.
@Michael BG – agree with you. Some interesting ideas there. I think we need to radically reform our institutions that are still operating in the Victorian Age: Whitehall, Parliament, NHS, Prisons, Regionalism/localism.
We need to sell all this in a way that persuade people it will make policy be implemented better for them, healthcare safer, prisons more cost effective, regional and local govt more powerful and responsive to them.
I’d be happier if we never described ourselves as centrists again. We need to be known for something, eg for voters to know that a vote for us is a vote to change the way the uk works, politically and economically, to the betterment especially of the left behinds and JAMs. [if u are not happy with the status quo, vote LD, I’m sure we could make campaigning hay with that]. The big 2 need to appeal to the centre to win majorities but of course they have their core vote. We need a way of attracting a bigger core vote.
Beware the muddled middle. This is a radical party with a radical vision.
John I agree – that’s exactly what we need.
@ John Probert. “this is a radical party with a radical vision”.
It certainly used to be – it’s only hope is that under Vince it can become so again.
If we are a party which is only liberal on social issues but not on economic issues then we will continue to suffer from
a) being inconsistent and irrational because social and economic freedoms and issues intertwine and overlap
b) people not seeing that we have a clear, radical liberal position
c) not being sufficiently differentiated from the Labour party and socialism
The party can’t sustain a position of being only half liberal and expect to be credible.
David,
Your talking to yourself as David Raw stated it was tried under Clegg/Alexander/Law and failed miserably. Where is your standard bearer for your policies, they have all fallen and no one is rushing to pick up the banner. Your confusing what you call classic liberalism ( many of us call it libertarianism) with liberalism, the party hasn’t followed that approach since before Lloyd George, it moved on it became the party of Keynes and Beveridge; a cry of back to the future will only lead to the death of the party. The voters have no desire to live in the cut throat economy of Victoria which is what you are pushing.
I suggest you look at the German party that followed your approach it is called the Freie Demokratische Partei, but don’t look for it in the Bundestag it isn’t there.
@ David Evershed. I’m afraid you’ll have to resurrect Lord Rosebery for that sort of stuff – and don’t forget the baggage of Liberal Imperialism goes with that.
David Evershed
David Raw is right, you know. I would add that so-called economic liberalism is very much a 19th Century philosophy. It is worrying that politics, certainly as being taught at A Level, has reintroduced it as an ideology. These ideas had disappeared from 20th century liberalism, certainly in Britain. They need to disappear sharpish. Your points a and c don’t seem to me to have much traction. Why for instance do you insist we need more distance from “the Labour Party and socialism”? The Labour Party grew out of the Liberal Party (the radical – yes, radical – wing of the Liberal Party got fed up being held back by the Whiggish wing). Your point b seems to be aligned with the fact that the Orange Book tradition wishing not to apologise for any of its actions in Coalition. This of course, has close parallels to both Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, and nuLabour not wanting to acknowledge their errors as neo-liberal economics runs out of road!
Frankie, David Raw, Tim13
Re The need for economic liberalism and its inseparability from social liberalism.
Civil liberties surely includes the right of individuals and groups of individuals to ply their trade – what is generally called free markets. Obviously within the laws of public safety and open competition.
The benefits of free markets and free trade (free markets across national boundaries) is that the efficient providers of goods and services drive out the inefficient to the benefit of consumers ie everyone.
The fall of communism, the worldwide growth of free markets and free trade and reduced protectionism by governments has led to a worldwide explosion of wealth, especially in the countries with the biggest populations like China, India, Indonesia.
This globalisation of free markets has meant some equalisation between the previous have-nots in the East at the expense of previously protected workers in the West who have had dashed their expectations of a perepetual raising of their standard of living without needing to raise productivity.
Free markets, free trade and globalisation provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Liberal economics are alive and well. Just not in the Lib Dem party it seems.
David Evershed,
Well, credit to you for trying. The LibDems could have offered so much to our fractured nation and Frankie and Tim13 are correct in that the party membership are off to fight Corbyn for the market niche he has already sewn up.
On the way they will sprinkle words around “strong economy” but they have no heart in it, they do not want it, believe in it or know how to do it (apart from the time honoured “invest in infrastructure and skills” piffle.
They want economic liberals to “disappear sharpish” (i think that was the term used).
So it’s clear that it’s the Corbyn constituency that this party wants and the “soft-Tories” can keep their heartless, Thatcherite, failed neo-liberal economics (and their votes) to themselves.
David Evershed: And who precisely in the UK is going to vote for globalisation, free markets and free trade, other than well off upper middle class types who have sufficient skills and / or capital, who can afford to live comfortably in any “world city”, and who in many cases don’t actually apply for work, as they are headhunted?
43% of the electorate voted for the Tories who stood largely on a nationalist position filled with both protectionist and even more state power rhetoric. 40% of the electorate vote for Labour who stood on a platform of old style protectionist socialism. Voters largely back controls on immigration, nationalisation of public services and public infrastructure, are sceptical of foreign takeovers of British firms, against foreign ownership of British property, anti job offshoring, and when the likes of TTIP are further examined, there is much opposition to them. The Greens and UKIP are equally protectionist in certain ways.
In short what we can conclude from the election and the voting public is that the public want Labour to be a proper left wing party, and the Tories to be a nationalist party, rather than both wings of faceless bankers and finance capitalism, who push the globalisation and free trade narrative.
In America both Trump and Sanders stood against TPP, offshoring jobs and to “nationlise the economy”.
The idea that ordinary working class and lower middle class voters in Western countries will vote for their own demise as jobs go overseas, public services are opened up globally to corporations, borders are progressively opened, and property is sold globally, is about as likely as seeing Gary Glitter rise to the top of the hit parade again.
David Evershed – You say “Free markets, free trade and globalisation provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” They have also led to the greatest divide between the mega rich and the middle in living memory. That has given huge untrammelled power to a totally unrestrained elite, which they abuse to their absolute advantage.
As a liberal I am totally against it. Aren’t you?
2nd Coalition? Times and Independent reporting Vince Cable interested in doing a deal. No doubt on basis of putting the country first, just like last time.
Wouldn’t surprise me.
I have some sympathies with those who self-describe as “economic liberals”, but the success of this party probably depends on forming a new definition of economic liberalism that is distinct from “classical liberalism”. There is political space in the centre and centre-right, we have a probable leader in Vince Cable who is associated with business and economics so now would be a good time to develop this side of the party.
We must dispense with tribalism. With the Conservatives going full throttle to a Brexit fantasy that will make us poorer, and Labour promising everything with no way to pay for it – We must get our act together.
Talk of splits, one party wing get it over the other does not help. Of course everyone has their own views.
But with Vince as leader – someone who is pro free-market but with a social conscience. You can be both an economic liberal and a social liberal. Fiscally responsible and attempt to keep down inflationary pressures, whilst radically rethinking the way we fund and structure entitlements, institutions and welfare state along progressive lines.
We need branding, punch lines, messaging, cunning as well as ideas.
The centre ground is there – so lets organise ourselves with a strategic vision and tactical nous to take it!
We will do so if we connect with people’s feelings and circumstances. Go to my blog site and read these two articles if you’re interested: https://notboliticspolitics.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/radical-moderates-in-the-name-of-democracy-let-us-all-unite/
https://notboliticspolitics.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/the-liberal-democrats-have-survived-now-they-must-survive-thrive-and-achieve/
I have been a member of the party since 1986 and the number of times I’ve heard fellow Lib Dems say we have to be radical let’s change the voting system is endless and I’m afraid is a big turn off for me and millions of voters who see these policies as self serving. I agree with these policies but the thing that gets me really riled is inequality which is now being expressed in political polarisation. This is what imprisons people but we are unable to sort it out because we can’t unite around an economic policy. Until we do we’ll be stuck in the slough of despond.
What is Liberal about economic liberalism if it results in the majority of the population being enslaved by it? I had forgotten, until another post reminded me, about the shift from taxes on earnings to VAT. We campaigned against this at the time and we are living in the sort of unequal society we feared would result from this and other regressive policies. So why don’t we campaign to change this first rather than the voting system?
As a nation we are slipping back into a form of aristocracy where the peasants have a better standard of living but many still struggle to find a home and food, even though they may be working, and people still die from poverty. I find this unacceptable. Why aren’t we Lib Dems outraged enough to dare to be different and stand up for people who don’t want a socialist state but who do want fairness?
Surely this is what our Liberal forefathers wanted to deliver.
@David Orbison
If there was a second coalition it could only be if Brexit was put to a vote, that would split the Tories right down the middle and the one thing they don’t do is give up power. As to supporting the odd policy or so possible, I’d advise against it. I know you want a new coalition but as Vince said in the Guardian
“We’ve made a virtue that we’re not going to coalition; we’re not propping up this government,” he told the Guardian last week. “And after our experience, who can blame us?”
the actual headline in the Independent is
Theresa May pleads for Lib Dem votes to help her weakened government on NHS rescue plan
hardly a coalition is it. Also from the article
“Cross-party working on the NHS, specifically social care, and the Lib Dem plan for a ring-fenced 1p on tax were both mentioned” a source said. “The approach came from the Conservatives, not the Lib Dems.”
be hard to vote against a policy you had in your manifesto, but don’t let facts get in the way of your theory that we are all waiting to jump back in bed with the Tories.
Sue it is right that we to dare to be different and stand up for people who don’t want a socialist state but who do want fairness and it is the way of Keynes and Beveridge. When Beveridge published his report in 1942 and recommended that the government should find ways of fighting the five ‘Giant Evils’ of ‘Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness’. people who push economic liberalism only use that name because libertarianism is such a toxic brand but libertarian they are and their way will fail miserably to fight the five ‘Giant Evils’ of ‘Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness’.
@ Will Parker
I don’t see how you could democratise prisons, the last people to control them should be the victims of crime; it would be possible to have some token prisoner representatives on the boards.
Well said, Richard Easter. I can’t imagine many disagreeing with your analysis.
@ David Evershed
Economic liberalism is understood to mean a smaller government, removing restrictions on markets, it can also include balanced government budgets and a non-interventionalist government. Do you accept all of these aspects of economic liberalism? How would this make British society more economically equal?
Social liberalism does not advocate protectionism.
@Michael BG – I did not say we should ‘democratise’ prisons. I was arguing for reform. That means thinking of innovative ways to tackle re-offending rates to bring down record prison population. That means getting a grip on community engagement once prisoners are released. Obv more to it than that – but thats the core of it. As a party we should make a bigger deal of this kind of thinking.
But back to the point of my article – it’s up to us to rebuild the centre ground – the case for which I’ve argued in my article. Do you agree? If not what do you think we need to do to start connecting and convincing people?
Do we rebuild the centre ground, answer to that is No. Do we rebuild the sensible ground which doesn’t believe that Brexit is the cure for everything and people can have free stuff, answer to that is Yes.
@ David Evershed
The line you put, that there is a big gap in the political market for a party that stands predominantly for right-wing economics which used to be called “Thatcherism” but people like you have pushed as “economic liberalism”, is one that was put for year by commentators on the Liberal Democrats. These were always commentators who were firm supporters of the Conservative Party writing in Conservative-supporting media.
For many years this was treated as a bit of a joke, because the whole point of the Liberal Party was that it was about those liberals who had rejected that idea, and so had not joined in with the more right-wing factions who merged with the Conservative Party in various stages in the 20th century.
However, with the push to the right encouraged by the Orange Book and money being poured into groups like Centre Forum to encourage it, some people started taking it seriously. That seemed to include Nick Clegg, and certainly some of those he appointed to top positions running the party.
They then used the Coalition to push it further, I remember Clegg and those surrounding him pushing the line which was just like yours – if you don’t like it, go off and join Labour.
Well, it seems you lot have won. To most people, the Liberal Democrats are now seen to be like you want it. This was sealed by the way the Leave campaign managed to put the idea that staying in the EU was all about extreme free market economics against more control by the people, and the way the Liberal Democrats were pushed by Tim Farron as a party that was about opposing Brexit and nothing else. Farron did nothing to counter the way Labour used the Coalition to paint the Liberal Democrats as just “we too” to Thatcherism, and continued to praise Clegg so people continued to see the party as where he had pushed it.
So, there we are. Where are all those extra voters you lot have said that would bring us?
D. Ever shed. It’s a bit ironic that the people who push the notion of market economics can’t seem to grasp that all the outcome evidence is that there is no market for a political party espousing such views other than the red in tooth and claw Tory party.
Suggest mr Evershed reads Charles Dickens ,Hard Times to get the full flavour of Benthamite Utilitarianism.
The more I read these comments the more depressed I become. I think we really need to get a dose of reality.
I first got involved in 1970. We polled 7.5%, lost half our seats and finished with 6. It was a disastrous result. Bear in mind though that we polled similarly in both 2015 and 2017, in 1970 we stood in only 332 out of 630 seats. So assuming a uniform vote across all seats if we had been standing pro rate would equate to just under 14.5%. This gives an idea as to how far we have fallen.
We have to go back to basics. We must decide on our “why” – our purpose/why we exist. Now that has to underpin our policies but if we want to be a mass movement party we have to be able communicate that succinctly. So let find a word or short phrase that sums up why we exist. Once we have done this then set out our policy positions.
If you don’t believe me watch this link of Simon Sinek. Yes he is American but not all that’s truthful exists this side of the Atlantic.
https://youtu.be/u4ZoJKF_VuA
In my view its the definitive work in this area. It’s devastatingly simple, truthful and if you can join up the dots, it answers very clearly in why a party that had a vote share of 23% seven years ago can collapse so spectacularly. Yes we can blame the Tuition Fees fiasco, the tribal Tories, bad luck, you name it but essentially too few of our voters understood why we exist and why we chose to take the pluralist route to the benefit of the country.
David Bingham
We have to go back to basics. We must decide on our “why” – our purpose/why we exist.
We exist because the electoral system in effect meant there was a cozy alliance between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In effect an agreement that in large parts of the country Labour would be the rulers and representatives by right, in return for that being the same for the Conservatives in other parts.
So in those parts where Labour assumed they had the right to rule they became lazy and complacent because they didn’t actually have to go out and do anything to win votes. In those parts that Labour abandoned to the Conservatives the sort of person who would have voted Labour felt abandoned by Labour because Labour did not seem interested in them.
The working class in southern and rural Britain shifted en masse from Labour to the Liberals because Labour gave the impression that it was only interested in representing northern and urban people. Where Labour did exist in southern and rural areas, it was often more an intellectual elite theoretical socialist party than a party of the people. The Liberal succeeded by putting themselves as more down-to-earth, and humbly accepting that they didn’t have a right to anyone’s vote – they needed to earn it.
Similarly, in places where Labour became lazy and complacent because they assumed they had the right to be in power forever, the Liberals were able to make an effective challenge to them, again by working hard to show they really were on the side of the people and didn’t just think they had a right to their votes. They won over votes that would never have gone to the Conservatives, because they were votes of people who wanted politics that supported a fairer and more equal society.
But now the Liberal Democrats are seen as the opposite of all that – they are seen everywhere as the sort of party that people used to vote Liberal because they opposed it. It is now the Liberal Democrats who are seen as some sort of snobbish elite party, who neither know nor care about the sort of issues that most bother ordinary people.
Liberal economics and globalisation has made most people in the world less poor (or more wealthy), better fed and more healthy. The World Bank shows poverty declining sharpley since 1990. See https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25078/9781464809583.pdf#page=73
But some commentators are worried that liberal economics and globalisation also mean increased inequality and that this is not desired, even if everyone is better off.
However, UK inequality is no different now than in 1990 despite some people asserting that inequality has increased. See the IFS report at https://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/ER_JC_2013.pdf
We can’t argue for ever. Depression is justifiable but ultimately will get us zilch.
I reiterate: ‘But back to the point of my article – it’s up to us to rebuild the centre ground – the case for which I’ve argued in my article. Do you agree? If not what do you think we need to do to start connecting and convincing people?’
‘We need branding, punch lines, messaging, cunning as well as ideas.
The centre ground is there – so lets organise ourselves with a strategic vision and tactical nous to take it!’
We will do so if we connect with people’s feelings and circumstances. Go to my blog site and read these two articles if you’re interested: https://notboliticspolitics.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/radical-moderates-in-the-name-of-democracy-let-us-all-unite/
https://notboliticspolitics.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/the-liberal-democrats-have-survived-now-they-must-survive-thrive-and-achieve/
Will,
I understand what you are trying to achieve and commend your persistence but virtually every thread, on this site, ends with this same split of opinion.
Worse still, the tone invariably gets more tetchy and unpleasant as the number of comments grows. This is the dialogue of two deaf people with megaphones and it’s more fundamental than will be fixed by sitting round the camp fire singing “Kum-bay-Ya”.
It’s the old story. Kinnock versus Militant Tendency, the PLP versus Momentum.
In essence a LibDem version of Old Labour versus New Labour.
I want to vote for a centre ground party and not waste my vote as a futile protest. I am desperate for the LibDems to be that entity, but as much as I try to follow the road the party is following I despair that it will not be able to resolve, amicably and constructively, this split that appears time after time after time.
I expect push back but read the language used here and decide whether this dialogue is convergent or divergent.
Thank you @Barry Snelson – yes see your point and agree with your analysis.
Mathew,
I can’t argue with your summation I would however argue with your conclusion. There are no economic Liberal left to carry their banner. If any still exist in the leadership of the party they are keeping very quite, they may very well be waiting their chance but I think they’ve realised their chance has come and gone, it may however come again; a danger in politics that a siren song will pull us all onto the rocks.
I have noticed that a lot of the economic Liberals no longer belong to the party, strange that. As to the voting public i don’t think they think of us as Thatcherite, they don’t think of us as much at all. That is both a curse and a blessing, a curse because we are overlooked, a blessing because it means you can become what ever you want to be.
Liberal economics and globalisation has made most people in the world less poor (or more wealthy), better fed and more healthy. The World Bank shows poverty declining sharpley since 1990. See https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25078/9781464809583.pdf#page=73
But some commentators are worried that liberal economics and globalisation also mean increased inequality and that this is not desired, even if everyone is better off.
However, UK inequality is no different now than in 1990 despite some people asserting that inequality has increased. See the IFS report at
David Evershed – why are the British working class, technical workers and lower middle class going to vote for globalisation.
Why would CSC IT staff vote for a system which has seen them having to train their Indian replacements, as the jobs go overseas?
Why would low paid call centre workers in the UK back their jobs go overseas and plunge themselves into poverty?
Why would London taxi drivers who have to train hard to learn “The Knowledge” support a system that allows predatory multinationals like Uber, backed by big investment banks to come in and use cheap labour who don’t even need to be in command of spoken English?
Why would staff at Prudential in Reading support the offshoring of their jobs to Mumbai?
Why would a young lawyer in London who cannot get on the property ladder despite a good salary and financial self displine support global sales of property, allowing rich overseas buyers pricing them out of the property market?
Why would train guards at Merseyrail and Northern support the axing of their jobs in very impoverished areas, and train drivers additional legal liability and potential prison time if mistakes are made, for the benefit of improving the wealth portfolio of foreign investors, who happen to be foreign state rail companies?
Why would the workforce for Cadbury in Keynesham support the sale of the firm to US giant Kraft, who offshored the work to Poland and closed their factory?
I could continue. Grangemouth, Ford in Dagenham and so on. But why would the British voter back a system that will disadvantage them, in many cases very severely just to boost wealth overseas. You could call them Corbynites / trade union militants / luddites / Kippers / racists / xenophobes and so on. But their greivences are real, and fueled by globalisation.
David Evershed – why are the British working class, technical workers and lower middle class going to vote for globalisation.
Why would CSC IT staff vote for a system which has seen them having to train their Indian replacements, as the jobs go overseas?
Why would low paid call centre workers in the UK back their jobs go overseas and plunge themselves into poverty?
Why would London taxi drivers who have to train hard to learn “The Knowledge” support a system that allows predatory multinationals like Uber, backed by big investment banks to come in and use cheap labour who don’t even need to be in command of spoken English?
Why would staff at Prudential in Reading support the offshoring of their jobs to Mumbai?
Why would a young lawyer in London who cannot get on the property ladder despite a good salary and financial self displine support global sales of property, allowing rich overseas buyers pricing them out of the property market?
Why would train guards at Merseyrail and Northern support the axing of their jobs in very impoverished areas, and train drivers additional legal liability and potential prison time if mistakes are made, for the benefit of improving the wealth portfolio of foreign investors, who happen to be foreign state rail companies?
Why would the workforce for Cadbury in Keynesham support the sale of the firm to US giant Kraft, who offshored the work to Poland and closed their factory?
I could continue. Grangemouth, Ford in Dagenham and so on. But why would the British voter back a system that will disadvantage them, in many cases very severely just to boost wealth overseas. You could call them Corbynites / trade union militants / luddites / Kippers / racists / xenophobes and so on. But their greivences are real, and fueled by globalisation.
@ Richard Easter,
You could also be more critical of the World bank’s claims about ‘shared prosperity’, Richard. Oxfam and others have published critiques.
Richard, many of those you ask rhetorical questions about are employed and paid by global companies.
@ Will Parker
You wrote you agreed with my ideas that emphasised democratisation and you added prisons. Sorry I misunderstood.
I thought I was clear. I am not interested in taking a central position between two views, on some “centre ground”; I am interested in the party wanting to radically reform society to give people more elections with small electorates where each vote matters and where the elected are known by the voters and so give them more freedom and control; where inequalities are reduced so those at the bottom do have the same freedom as those at the top. It could be said I want the party to be a radical liberal party which will radically change the UK.
@ David Evershed
The IFS report clearly shows inequalities rising since 1979.
Please can you answer my earlier questions (3.50pm)?
Will Parker. Maybe slightly off topic but you did make this comment.
“With the Conservatives going full throttle to a Brexit fantasy that will make us poorer,”
I have no idea if Brexit will make us poorer or force us to think differently about our future priorities, but are not the words ‘us’ and ‘poorer’ relative terms that must be fine-tuned alongside each of our particular socioeconomic group.
Some leave voters were already on the proverbial ‘beans on toast’, and to tell them it’s going to be hell living on jam and bread from the end of 2019, will produce glazed indifference and a shrug of ‘so what?’ At the same time I’ve heard comments such as ‘Exit from the EU puts my daughters Erasmus in jeopardy’. Do we really expect the ‘jam on bread’ chap to be moved an inch by the potential threat to our middle class daughters’ lost Erasmus gap year?
I was amused when MP Richard Benyon quipped in the House that “Someone once said that deprivation in west Berkshire was when Waitrose runs out of balsamic vinegar.”
When we use words like ‘us’, we perhaps need to calibrate it carefully alongside all socioeconomic groups that comprise our fellow citizens, because let’s be honest, not all fears and angst’s’ are equal. I see no merit in trying to put a post-Brexit fear of god into someone who has ‘next-to-nowt’, telling them after Brexit they will have ‘nowt’. Whatever unseen icebergs Brexit will need to navigate, can we not agree that the good ship HMS Scaremonger has sailed?
And to pull it back on topic Will, I applaud your enthusiasm, and it troubles me deeply to have to ask questions that might stall your zest to make the world a better place.
The centre ground as it was, became vacant and uninhabited because a section of society felt Centrism had abandoned them forcing them to seek answers elsewhere. So what inclusivity is there going to be in your newly build centre, that not just excites you, but will inspire and energise the chap with ‘next-to-nowt’ to roll his sleeves up and help you build this regenerated centre ground?
Whatever happens, keep up the work, the answers are out there somewhere.
Barry
Great to have your contribution, wondered if you’d left the clan, missed your mainstream views with staunch expression of them.
I agree with you as I often did. And even when I didn’t it was in Liberal friendliness.
Some of us try very hard to be more than civil , very constructive , in the radical centre, which does exist , and moderate centre left too.
David Evershed – I’m afraid you seem to be suffering from acute confirmation bias. Even the article you refer to https://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/ER_JC_2013.pdf which you consider repudiates our claims actually supports them.
I suggest you read all the way through to the final section titled
Why are top incomes racing away?
Which states
“All of the above explanations probably have some part to play in explaining the increase in inequality in the UK over the 1980s. However it is not clear which, if any, provide a good explanation of why inequality at the very top of the income distribution has continued to rise compared to other measures of inequality.
In many countries incomes have risen for the top 0.1% even faster than the top 1%, suggesting this might be part of a global phenomenon rather than something specific to the UK. British economist Tony Atkinson argues that globalisation and international labour mobility has lead to an international market for “global stars”, where firms will pay very high salaries to attract the world’s best. In sports, entertainment, business, and even academia, there can be very large pay differences for relatively small differences in ability. He also suggests that social norms which limited the pay differential between top and middle earners have eroded.
These are plausible explanations but, as yet, there is little evidence to show how much these factors might have contributed to the increase in inequality. Despite recent media attention on the incomes of those at the very top of the income distribution, and the fact that the increasing inequality began over a decade ago, the continued rapid growth in top incomes is still only beginning to be understood by economists.”
We could add, ” … but they are understood by most Liberals.”
It’s hard to distil the ‘why’ of my own liberal democracy into a pithy one-liner.
But I’m prepared to have a go at it in longer form:
‘Liberalism is about freedom – freedom of ordinary people to live lives without interference, to work together for the common good, and to build their health, wealth and happiness.
But freedom to act – for people and organisations – comes with the risk of damaging the opportunities of others; so Liberalism equally believes in taking active steps to mitigate the harm that someone’s freedom to act may inflict on other people.
Liberalism believes that most people’s best chance to achieve health, wealth and happiness lies within their community, and therefore that all kinds of communities should be supported, encouraged and empowered wherever possible.
Finally Liberalism understands the imbalances of power that exist naturally within communities and society as a whole, and strives to protect those disadvantaged by imbalances.’
I guess I could sum it up as saying that Liberal Democrats believe in Freedom, Fairness and Community?
Hello Lorenzo,
Thank you for your kind words. I have withdrawn recently, frankly because the party metamorphosed into a single issue pressure group and became the rallying point for a second referendum. My antennae felt that the British people had no appetite for a re-run, even if the Leavers had changed their minds and the LibDem Remain caucus had mis-perceived the Referendum as a joust between professional politicians while we, the public, watched from the stands.
It wasn’t. It was within and between families. I know of one family where the daughter has only just resumed talking to her mother, and relations remain frosty still, because the dear old bat chose a different box on the ballot. Even now, i have to be wary about the topic in social conversation because a blazing row could easily erupt. I don’t know about the Scottish Independence vote but I imagine the mood is the same there. That is, people have tasted the brother versus brother, daughter versus mother Civil War, and don’t want to go there again. Tim’s carefully crafted, and reasonable, arguments cut no ice. The feeling out there (at least by my perception) is “No thanks. We don’t want to go there again. Let’s grit our teeth and make the best of it.”
I felt the best LibDem stance would have been the party to bind the nation’s wounds and actually work, with whatever other parties, to find and to make “the best of it”.
But on these threads all I read was the incandescent rage of the LibDem remain camp.
On the future, again I fear the emotion and anger of those who feel their LibDem vision is a righteous crusade for social justice when Mr and Mrs Horace and Doris Morris in their 3 bed semi only want a party that is not ideology driven but is competent at the management of the finances of a small island holding only 1% of the world’s population.
Anyway, I saw your friend request on Facebook and I apologise for not accepting but at my maximum I only ever had one friend (the wife) but got fed up of notifications telling me one of her chums had bought a pair of shoes so i de-friended even her so I am Facebook BillyNomates.
Barry
Good to read your assessing of why I and we have been minus , you !
So much you say in one post , reminds me why I liked your comments often, and shows your’e better of in this tent p…. ing out , than the other way , so to semi- speak !
As a man senior to me , what about the Sir Vince , era coming up? Common sense and gravitas ….?
As far as you are concerned , facebook is pointless, as far as I am concerned it is merely used to be a member of certain little online , friends of , societies or groupings , only two or three, but ones you cannot join unless on it !
Look forward to your input more. It’s friendly yet here !
We spent almost a year following the 2015 melt down redefining what it meant to be a Liberal Democrat so enough of the navel gazing .What we need to do is promote a new liberal enlightenment fit for the 21st Century . both Labour and the Conservatives are authoritarian by nature we prefer evidence based policy making but have a clear radical and progressive set of core values .I hope that is promoted by our new leadership before we become completely invisible on the political scene.
Lorenzo,
Thank you for your invitation to comment and I am not in the slightest senior to anyone. Also, I may not make a habit of contributing as I have other demands and I find that there are a half dozen voices here whose passions are larger than their good manners. I do not, emphatically, include yourself and you are always courteous and respectful.
As to the Sir Vince question, I hold him in high regard as he was as good a Business Secretary as Theresa May was a bad Home one.
However, I think the party should not rush to tick the “Select a new leader” box and then sit back and hope for the best. Members should ponder carefully before choosing as the leadership role here is one of the most challenging imaginable. A slight doubt I would have for Sir Vince is his readiness to fight his corner in the Commons. Not that I suggest foregoing any suitable opportunity for worthwhile points scoring but the next phase, to me anyway, is about interaction with the members and restoring morale and self esteem. The LibDem troops will stand before the new leader having just returned from the battlefield with torn uniforms, bent bayonets and with black eyes and bruises.
They look sorry for themselves and some are muttering about the generals.
It’s to them I would say the attention should go and let May and Corbyn argue around the Brexit cooking pot themselves for a while.
They need engagement, listening to and messages of optimism and fresh ideas. I fear Vince is a little too much of his own man to do the Macron/Obama/Trudeau thing.
I wouldn’t recommend going the whole Christopher Biggins but would ease back, a little, on the Victor Meldrew.
The next phase would be to unite the factions which the deniers say don’t exist but any reader of these threads knows that they do.
There is a lot of hot air devoted to the ‘science’ of leadership. I have seen many management styles from the Mr Barraclough to the Mr MacKay, and any can succeed and any fail.
The only elements that matter are firstly a clear vision of what the future should be, secondly the eloquence to turn and convince the followers of the vision and finally the persistence to lead them there through all the obstacles.
Anyway, I’ve said enough, and, if you forgive me, I will move on to other challenges.
Thank you again, Lorenzo.
Neil Sandison “We spent almost a year following the 2015 melt down redefining what it meant to be a Liberal Democrat so enough of the navel gazing.”
We have recruited quite a lot of new members since then. Particularly after the referendum and then just after the calling of the GE. No harm in letting people join that discussion.
Barry Snelson – I believe the best way for Libdem to distinguish themselves is adopting a full-fledge Continental European (Scandinavian/German) policy platform (i.e. social market). I hope that the next Libdem manifesto will be more similar to that of a German party than an Anglo-Saxon party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
Richard Easter
The answer to all your questions is ……..
…. because it is better for people as a whole to have better priced and better quality goods and services with free markets and free trade than with protectionism.
And I am sure if you told those people that, the response would be unprintable and a vote for Corbyn / Sturgeon / Farage or whoever else sees them as British citizens, rather than collateral damage for the benefit of boosting the Chinese middle class.
David Evershed – I prefer the German social market model (Rhineland capitalism) over Anglo-Saxon free-market model, because the former actually cares about fairness and the well-being of people. The German model is a mixed model where the state actively involves in the economy via regulations and directions to promote fair competition, not a free market model.
The LibDems are insufficiently distinct on policy, but that policy should not be Orange book centre right liberalism, as there is little public support for that and that area is eclipsed by Britain’s dominant party.
The LibDems need to be a party of the centre left distinct from Labour. It needs to informed from the successful German Co-operative Capitalism and the Scandinavian model, but with more flexibility for small business.
I am not a natural LibDem voter. I voted for them when Cameron won but they went into coalition with him so have not voted for them since. They need to be more than ‘Nice Tories’. They don’t seem to stand for anything.
I voted LibDem when Clegg was leader but was appalled at the immediate betrayal and his joining up with the Tories to start off austerity. Never again. Most people now view the LibDems as ‘nice’ Tories.