Easter is a time of new beginnings, wrote my local Vicar in his April newsletter. New beginnings for whom? I wondered. If the followers of a 2000-year-old religion can talk about new beginnings, can there be anything in the idea for the rather younger Liberal Democrats?
This is a time of working and waiting, for us – working for the May elections and waiting for Brexit-related developments. But could this be a pregnant pause, with our party about to burst into new life after the nine-month post Referendum hard grind? I believe so.
What strikes me first about this time is the sound of silence. All the fierce denunciations by Brexiteers of supposed backsliding by Remainers (who actually thought they were lucky to get a word in edgeways) has ceased. The angry headlines in the right-wing press, stirring up ordinary folk to stay agitated about immigrants and Brussels and rulings by foreign courts or even our own – all gone.
The intimidation of Remainers had its effects. Canvassing in Gorton last Saturday, I didn’t quite convince a young man who believes we are right in our demands over Brexit and for a referendum on the final deal, will vote for Jackie Pearcey but feels May is too entrenched with too many backers for our national aims to succeed. He had evidently been silenced by the angry clamour which claimed to represent that elusive ‘will of the people’, who ‘wanted their country back’.
Now, though, with the relief of satisfied silence from the current winners, fresh hopes can be stirring, The anger and dismay of Remainers begins to be voiced. What, did the people vote to be worse off? They already are, with rising prices and a weak pound. The Brexit secretary David Davis pledged that we will have ‘exactly the same benefits’ when we are out of the single market and the customs union as we had within them, at the same time as EU leaders plainly told us that no deal can be as good as the one we propose to give up. Even Theresa May, still advocating a ‘hard Brexit’, is acknowledging there will be a price to pay. But so far is she from being able to represent all of the people that the poorest are getting poorer, and ‘just about managing’ working people with benefits frozen may already be heading for the food banks.
The Liberal Democrats are here to represent ordinary people and to fight for them, against a government turning its face away, and an official opposition too divided to be able to do it. As people realise this, it doesn’t matter that they won’t yet know much about our policies. We are for the EU, they knew that already, but now it is becoming clear why we opposed Brexit – because of the harm it is doing and will do to ordinary British people if it is not stopped.
Already there is a new beginning. Our Leader Tim Farron has declared that we are aiming now to become the main national opposition party, replacing Labour. And, at last, Tim is being asked for his comments on the issues of the day by the media, and they are being reported. At the same time, influential people are pointing out the folly of the proposed hard exit. Former political leaders Blair, Major and Heseltine have all spoken out, and now there is a new group of figures from business, the arts and the charity sectors, led by the campaigner who defeated the government in the courts over Article 50, Gina Miller, which is aiming to block a hard Brexit under the name UK-EU Open Policy.
These Influential people, along with pro-Europe groups such as Open Britain, need the political leadership of the Liberal Democrats. We require, and are beginning to obtain, our country’s belief that we are now not only much needed but are a significant force. As the damage of Brexit worsens, this new beginning in which we are seen as serious contenders for power will surely be as welcome as the summer flowers. It should be so, because we are here to serve and to help all of our people through this difficult and dangerous time.
* Katharine Pindar is a long-standing member of the Cumberland Lib Dems
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
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
40 Comments
………………….He had evidently been silenced by the angry clamour which claimed to represent that elusive ‘will of the people’, who ‘wanted their country back’………
Or, just perhaps, he had a different view from your’s?
Actually the “Voters” dont know that we are against Brexit, according to recent Polling its half & half. Around 1 in 2 voters know that we are Anti-Brexit, we have yet to get through to the others.
Our recovery is real but has a long way to go, yesterday provided more proof of that with 2 Local contests & no Libdem candidates.
We need to keep banging on about Brexit till we go blue in the face & we need to contest every Election.
Paul. I agree with your comment, we must bang on.
A considerable amount of people get there news from the right wing Brexiteer press.Our message is hardly likely to get much coverage from them. Therefore I can understand why our stance is not known. Until we get better coverage in the media our message has to be covered by our leaflets and public meetings.
paul barker 14th Apr ’17 – 11:12am………Actually the “Voters” dont know that we are against Brexit, according to recent Polling its half & half. Around 1 in 2 voters know that we are Anti-Brexit, we have yet to get through to the others……….
Paul, I doubt if ‘voters’ are unaware of our stance; however, there is a large section of the population who don’t vote and are unaware of any party’s policies… The ‘white van man’ who, prior to the 2015 election obtained an abject apology from a Labour minister, admitted that he wasn’t even aware that an election was happening…
You might well change the minds of “voters” but there is a section where apathy will always overrule any argument…
Hello Katharine,
Are we going to get any boost from the Copeland campaign in the upcoming County Council elections?
I can believe that a large chunk of the population won’t know, or claim not to know/care what we stand for, but I would argue that they either don’t care about Brexit either way, or are so heavily in favour that they have no interest in our party, unless there are insults to be thrown.
It is right that we maintain our message, and ensure that when people realise that Brexit might be a bit more complicated than a change of government, and there should be scrutiny, that they know that we are the party who have been doing that, and will keep on doing that.
It is, however, essential that we are not seen as a single-issue party. Our other policies, which I believe should be popular with our possible voters, need to get just as much attention, and there needs to be some evidence that we have wider credibility. Think of the Greens. Most people will agree with their view of combating climate change, but most people think other parties do that well enough, or that they don’t have enough else going on for them (plus FPTP). It’s not ever enough to be strong on one subject, no matter how important you think it is.
If you look at the material we are putiing out for May, its not all about Brexit by any means. When it comes to The National Party we have to fight very hard to get heard at all, we cant afford to talk about lots of different policies unless we are asked specific questions.
There is an argument that Brexit is becoming one of those rare “Frame” issues (like Indepndence in Scotland) through which everything else is seen. Being a “one Issue Party” hasnt done The SNP any harm.
SNP put forward that independence is the answer to every question. Unless the LibDems are prepared to claim that staying in or rejoining the EU will bring about an end to Tories and food banks, it’s not comparable. SNP are more similar to UKIP, except UKIP got their “independence”, despite few politicians, while the SNP are still blaming Brussels (Westminster).
However, I wasn’t claiming that the LibDems are a single issue party, nor that it comes across in our literature. More that we need to be careful not to be seen as such, whether driven by ourselves, or by the media.
Fiona, if the single issue is Brexit, that covers both our general approach and policies which show our concern for our fellow citizens, particularly the poorest and weakest. As Paul Barker says, we are in any case putting out more wide-ranging material for May. But we do have good policies, and are working on them – I look forward to the Economic Working Group’s conclusions and policy proposals for September. However, because we are a centrist, rational party we are not going to have the flamboyant sort of policies which the media can light on, which is why I am suggesting that we can and should make people aware of our general approach and policy direction at this time, and that this can be a winning way forward as the Brexit skies darken.
Andrew, are you in Cumbria and asking about Copeland’s effect here? I have no special knowledge, but the by-election was evidently good for us in increasing public awareness of Lib Dems and encouraging voting, as well as energising more of our supporters and increasing the proficiency of activists (thank you again, agent Andy!). The two county council campaigns hereabouts are being fought very professionally now, and finding new members, but we still would have liked more candidates to stand this time.
Sorry Katherine, but there appears to have been a misunderstanding. I didn’t say don’t talk about Brexit. Just that it shouldn’t be all we talk about. In particular, it shouldn’t be all we are seen to talk about, especially as some parts of the media want to reduce us to being just an anti-Brexit protest party.
Hello Katharine,
No I am not in Cumbria I am afraid (that would be nice!), Just interested if the effort put into the by-election will lead to any local election gains!
Hello, everyone, since writing this article I have read the Strategy Consultation Document, and like very much, among other things, its suggestion of creating a political and social movement to stand for and create the changes we want. Winning over liberals from other parties, seeking common ground on key policies and campaigning together are all suggested. However I do not see in that paper, nor have I heard before, any idea of giving political leadership to people outside the politically engaged, such as those brought together in the new grouping UK-EU Open Policy (see my penultimate paragraph final lines). It seems to me it would be worthwhile to directly contact and offer joint campaigning to such a group, and I should be glad to know other members’ views on this – as well as, of course, views on whether this can indeed be a time of ‘bursting into new life’ for our party.
@ Katherine Pindar,
” What, did the people vote to be worse off? They already are, with rising prices and a weak pound. ”
I often ask those who complain the pound has weakened recently to suggest what its value on the exchange rates should be. If it is high our exports are uncompetitive. The UK economy will suck in lots of imports and someone, either the Government or you and I, have to borrow to finance the net import bill.
In other words a high pound creates debt. Or, some economists might put it the other way around, but nevertheless one is associated with the other.
So what are you urging? That we should have a high pound or low debt economy? You can’t have both. When Governments try to have it both ways they either create a recession directly or induce credit booms and busts in the economy which always ends in a crash anyway.
eter Martin 15th Apr ’17 – 11:23am………… If it (the pound) is high our exports are uncompetitive. The UK economy will suck in lots of imports and someone, either the Government or you and I, have to borrow to finance the net import bill……….So what are you urging? That we should have a high pound or low debt economy? You can’t have both…….
Since the early 1950s the UK has had, with few exceptions,a continual Balance of Trade deficit…In fact the average, since 1955, has been around £1.5 billion per year…
We are still here!
The fact that we are the only major political party in favour of staying in Europe is preventing the media from writing us off and our opinion is being sought on other issues e.g. David Raw on grammar schools. The BBC said they were inundated with complaints about their poor coverage of the recent march in favour of the EU. Tim Farron has talked about the need for investment in social housing, health and social services and I think our future policies must reflect this. It’s time for a change from the economic policies that have benefited the very wealthy and devastated the weakest in our society, including those who are working for low wages and it’s time for us as Liberals and Democrats to get the best brains in our party to find ways of reversing this. I think it’s therefore time for us to stop talking about being centrist. That’s only if we’re not left or right. Liberalism can be robust, not wishy washy, and reform can be based on good Liberal principles not on the old left right axis which brought the Liberal party to its knees. The EU referendum has changed the axis of politics in this country and it’s brilliant that our party is benefiting from this. Long may it continue.
@Sue Sutherland
‘sought on other issues e.g. David Raw on grammar schools. ‘
I presume you mean David Laws, if we both saw the same TV interview yesterday.
Katharine positive and encouraging, Fiona , realistic and forwardthinking , both really agreeing.
This is the time we need to develop a maturity or gravitas to go with the humanity and essence of our responses to Brexit.
We are not going to be seen as an alternative to most peoples disollusionment with Labour or even the now plucky Tories, unless we broaden our discussion and stance , nationwide and soon.
Tim Farron has a lot to commend him. Too many that do not know him well know him for views on Brexit.
We need to be far more of the radical centre and moderate centre left, unifiy this dividing country, maintain the positive support for the union so ably articulated by Willie Rennie and colleagues , be strong but cautious too, on foreign policy and defence , have a lot more to say more often on the appalling lack of real terms support for the health services and social care, and much more to say about a real enterprise economy that means more of a level playing field and in which new and individual business and ideas and creativity thrive !
@expats,
It’s not quite as long as you suggest. The Current account has been mainly in deficit for the last 30 years or so though.
Yes, you are right, we are still here. But, both the government and private sector are heavily in debt. It’s the government debt which gets all the attention but that’s not really the one to worry about. As the following graph shows the debt for the financial sector, the household sector and government is 4 times the size of government debt.
The 2008 GFC came as rather an unpleasant surprise to those who considers that private sector debt is unimportant. The Government , both Tory and Labour, reacted to the crash by reducing interest rates to nearly zero to encourage us all to borrow more to revitalise an economy which had crashed because we had all borrowed too much previously.
Do you see the problem? What are governments going to do next time now that they can’t reduce interest rates any further?
Maybe Katharine Pindar won’t be able to answer the question of whether she wants a lower debt economy or a higher pound. Mostly those who complain about the reduced exchange rate haven’t thought it through properly. It’s just easy and convenient to blame Brexit and the Leavers for causing it to fall!
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/4060/economics/total-uk-debt/
Correction:
The above should read:
“the debt for the financial sector, the household sector and corporations is 4 times the size of government debt.”
One poll aint rising. Opinium, which some of us are constantly baffled by, has us down at 7%, UKIP at 14% (baffling in itself) and Greens up to 5% (equally wierd).
ComRes are out later tonight, should be slightly better for us
On Polls, I reccomend the Polling section at “Britain Elects”, theres a nice little graph showing the movement of their Weighted Average & a list of recent Polls, but dont look now – they havent put The Comres Poll up yet & I think there may be another up tonight.
Neither of todays Polls (so far) are outside the recent range for us, UKIP or Labour. Currently its not possible to say whether we or UKIP are ahead.
Theakes:
I think Opinium use some kind of online focus group. They obviously have some compensatory mechanisms, but, if their polling lacks sufficient randomisation, it is hard to see how Opinium can ensure that their technique is free of systematic error.
Peter Martin, thank you for your contributions above, and the formidable graphs. You are right that I won’t be able to answer your particular economic question, but isn’t there some joke about economists and light-bulb changing, which highlights their varied opinions? I was concerned to write about the way rising inflation is hurting people, with real wages declining. As Sue Sutherland rightly suggests, I believe, ‘ it is time for a change in the economic policies which have benefited the wealthy and hurt the poorest’ and Liberal Democrats must get the best advice possible to reverse this.
Lorenzo, I agree with your contribution, thank you, and like the idea of our being more of the ‘radical centre’ as well as the moderate centre left, since I guess these terms won’t disappear – and, Sue, I only meant to suggest that as we are essentially centrist, we will never have way-out ideas which the media would lap up. Having said that, I do like the Strategy Document’s suggested contrast between ‘an open, forward-looking society and a closed, backwards looking one’, while feeling it won’t cover the whole spectrum of what we are and what the Tory and UKIP opposition is.
Fiona, I didn’t want to ignore your second comment, but I don’t think we have anything to argue about – to me, the questions which our stance on Brexit brings up, will be answered by reference to our wider approaches and policies. Basically, we will be showing our concern for our people’s worsening economic condition and that we have, and are working to develop further, policies which would help – which benefit the businesses people work in or run, and which promote, hopefully, growth and productivity.
Thank you Ian Sanderson for your correction it was David Laws that I meant. Peter Martin, it seemed to me that Gordon Brown used private sector debt to even out glitches in the economy whereas Keynes advised governments to borrow to invest in infrastructure to do this. The problem of risk when the burden of keeping the economy buoyant is left to the borrowing of private individuals still doesn’t seem to be recognised by government.
@Sue Sutherland,
Yes you are absolutely correct in you last comments. Gordon Brown was merely following the economic orthodoxy of the time. Keynesianism, as explained by Keynes himself, had been ditched in favour of so-called New Keynesianism, (not really Keynesianism at all) with all the emphasis on interest rates and levels of private borrowing. Monetarism had morphed into Not Keynesianism. The crash of 2008 wasn’t supposed to happen according to NK theory! But real Keynesians weren’t at all surprised that it did.
@ Katharine Pindar.
Yes you are quite right to suggest that there is a high level of disagreement among economists. More than there should be. But, even so, you’d be hard pushed to find an economist who would argue that a lower pound wasn’t good for exporters. We don’t need to be economists to know that exporters provide employment.
On a more general level, I’d argue that all politicians and political activists, whatever their position on the political spectrum, should have an economic view. If you don’t understand how anything works how, even with the best will in the world, are you going to fix the problems we have? Aren’t you more likely to make things worse?
The ultra obvious example is EU politicians wanting to improve the state of the EU and introducing the euro. The idea that 19 EU countries can share a single currency without sharing their government and taxation structures too is really just about as stupid as it gets!
Yes, Peter, I can see of course that a lower pound is better for exporters, but there are other considerations for strengthening the economy, and I would rather learn from others than advance an ill-informed opinion. Surely the countries using the euro do have means of co-ordinating their economies, such as through the European Central Bank? And is it not a fact that the eurozone worked for the countries involved until the rapid expansion of the EU with many more poorer countries joining put too much strain on the system? Did not that rapid expansion from the east, together with the financial crisis of 2008, cause the current disharmonies which has left the EU unable to deal well with the latest massive strain, the refugee and migrant crisis?
I continue to feel that we Liberal Democrats, as part of our proposed leap into the big time, should be actively considering what reforms we wish to suggest to this EU which we hope to remain in – whether for instance decentralisation and greater democracy, or/and perhaps accepting that an inner and outer ring of the states would be the best way forward.
@Katharine Pindar,
The euro did seem to work reasonably well in the early stages even for a poorer country like Greece. Greece had very good levels of growth until it was hit by the 2008 GFC and subsequent crash. Ireland too, you’ll remember, had the nickname the Celtic Tiger until the events of 2008 put a stop to all that. It worked well because, for a time, the banks were willing to lend the private sectors in Greece and Ireland as many euros as they needed.
There are rules under the EU’s stability and growth pact for how much Governments can borrow. It is set at 3% of GDP. But there aren’t any rules on how much the private sector can borrow. Both types of borrowing initially have the same stimulatory effect on the economy. We had high levels of private borrowing in the UK and the USA too. But, in the aftermath of the GFC governments in the UK and the USA increased their borrowing to keep their economies functioning. For a currency issuing government ‘borrowing’ isn’t really the right word. They just create money as they need it. QE is a good example of that but money creation didn’t start or end with the various QE programs.
These options weren’t available to National Governments in the EZ. They lost their ability to react quickly in an emergency when they signed up for the euro. You are right that the ECB does have the ability to do these things but they were years too late in taking remedial action.
You are also right in thinking that the euro would have worked better if fewer countries were involved. The more countries there are the more difficult it is to share a currency. The problem is fundamental. Money is essentially an IOU of government. It is always going to be tricky if someone else is writing out IOUs for which you are responsible. You might even fall out with your partner if you have a joint account and they are spending on things which you disapprove of. If you are in a commune and everyone can write out cheques for the commune then its going to be even harder. That’s why Germany insisted on strict rules for the eurozone. But those strict rules have really been the undoing of the euro experiment.
The problems of the common currency was all foreseen by one of my favourite economists, the late Wynne Godley as long ago as 1992. Pity he wasn’t listened to more widely at the time.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-all-that
Thanks for the enlightenment, Peter, appreciated. I’d really like the discussion to be broadened. however, to consider where we are as a party in public perception, and whether we can move forward more rapidly now, backing up strategic thinking.
Actually, Easter isn’t a time of new beginnings. It’s a time of old beginnings.
Now our party can indeed burst into new life – a new beginning is provided for us. This is surely an opportunity to be heard, not just opposing a hard Brexit, but fiercely opposing this hard government’s indifference to the poorest and weakest citizens and those most stuck in hard circumstances without hope.
@ Katharine Pindar “fiercely opposing this hard government’s indifference to the poorest and weakest citizens and those most stuck in hard circumstances without hope.”
I couldn’t agree more, Katharine.
It would help if the party made this absolutely clear – and immediately ruled out any possible coalition or arrangement with this awful small minded Tory government. Day after day we get new impositions and cuts placed on those in society who are least able to bear it.
@ Katharine Pindar
“fiercely opposing this hard government’s indifference to the poorest and weakest citizens and those most stuck in hard circumstances without hope.”
I know Lib Dems like to pretend otherwise but the Tories were at their worst in the early years of the 2010 to 2015 government when the Lib Dems were in coalition. The Tories were smart enough to see that their austerity policies weren’t working and wouldn’t win an election if they carried on with their nonsensical plans to “balance the books”.
So the books weren’t balanced and the election was just about won! I really don’t remember the change came about from any pressure from the Lib Dems. I don’t remember Lib Dems saying that the change should have been made earlier to encourage the recovery from the GFC induced 2008 crash.
I know most Lib Dems, including yourself, have their hearts in the right place but that’s not really enough. The damage to the economy was done under your watch. And that damage has helped bring about Brexit as I’m sure you well know.
Your extraordinary view, Peter, at least makes a change from the right-wing usual facile argument that ‘the damage to the economy’ was done by the Labour government. I know that the Lib Dems entered the Coalition to give stable government at a time of dire economic difficulty after the 2008 crash, and did achieve that though at great cost to the party. This is not the time to go over how our ministers helped restrain the worst impulses of the bunch of self-seeking Tories they had to work with – those sophisticated predators who cared more for the fortunes of their donors than the plight of the poorest, but history will judge.
@ Katherine,
Oh I’m not excusing the Labour Govt either! But the reason they got it wrong wasn’t that they allowed the public finances to get out of control.The deficit they ran was about 3-4% of GDP which was much less than Mrs Thatcher was running in the early 90’s at the time of her resignation. That’s not at all an extra-ordinary view. I can show you figures and graphs for all that.
But we really need to know what we are talking about before we start criticising the Tories for running an 8% of GDP deficit in 1994, or the Labour Govt an 11% deficit in 2010. In 1994 the Trade Deficit was about 6% of GDP. The Domestic sector was saving 2% of GDP as they were trying to reduce debt levels from the crash of the early 90’s. You might notice that:
8=6+2
In 2010 the trade deficit was 8% of GDP.The Domestic sector was saving 3% as they were trying to reduce debt levels from the 2008 crash.
You might also notice that:
11=8+3
So if we are critcising either government, we are also criticising people for saving too much. And also critcising people for buying too many imports.
We can criticise both the Thatcher government and the Blair/Brown government for fuelling up the economy with too much private debt which caused the boom in property prices in the late 80’s and again in the run up to 2008. The high public sector deficits which followed were a natural consequence of earlier crashes.
Just to continue: These high deficits are the functioning of what Keynes termed the automatic stabilisers. The economy needs money to recover from a crash and the only place it can come from is government spending. If LibDems know anything about economics it should be Keynesian economics. He is one of your own after all. You really can’t ignore the work of such a genius.
But ignore it you did. George Osborne’s decision to raise VAT to 20% in the teeth of a raging recession to “reduce the deficit” was recklessly stupid in the extreme. You should have walked out of the coalition there and then. You’d have been doing the country and your own party a favour in the process.
David Raw – hi, David – I think you will agree that our Manifesto for the Election should include the party’s commitment to looking after the poorest and most disadvantaged of our society, for instance through fairer social security (see party policy, Mending the Safety Net) and more equitable taxation. We need to make it plain that the Government’s uncaring policies contrast with Mrs May’s claim to represent everyone and are totally unacceptable.
For our Manifesto only to concentrate on health and social care, or possibly add concerns on housing and education, would in my view fail to represent our deep concern about the worsening plight of working people on frozen benefits at a time of rising inflation, the falling standard of living for ordinary people and rising inequality. Yes, we must oppose Brexit, and expose the folly and fantasy of the government’s approach , but let us also stress our concern for the chief victims of that folly and rejection of this government’s indifference and neglect.
Thanks for your response, Katherine. Yes, I happen to be a Trustee of a Food Bank and I can tell you that we are getting more and more requests for help – many involving children. It’s heart breaking.
One of the things we have also done is to show the film, ‘I Daniel Blake’. I would make it compulsory for every MP and Parliamentary candidate to have to watch it.
Good luck in Cumbria. It seems (and it is) ages since I was on the Council in Kendal and Kirkby Stephen.
Katharine. PS Sorry about misspelling your name. One of my daughters is a Katie with an ‘e’.
It’s good to have your evidence of need, thanks, David. In fact it was comments of yours on earlier threads about your food bank and concerns that prompted me to raise this now, as well as your comment here on April 18. I feel it is very important that we in the party continue to emphasise our anxieties for the less fortunate, and don’t simply fall back on safe subjects and obvious solutions. We have done the needful work – for example, in our social security policy, we have agreed we will limit the triple lock policy as it refers to incomes of wealthier pensioners, in order to give more support to children in poorer families.
(I’m gradually acquiring your biography, I see, David – from Huddersfield to Scotland somewhere via South Lakes! Best wishes for your continuing Lib Dem activism. We have two good candidates standing here in West Cumbria for the county council, who will probably be required to adopt a higher profile for June 8!)