The Liberal Democrats are presently rebuilding. We are welcoming in huge numbers of new members and fighting back to regain or retain seats across the country. Part of the challenge of rebuilding means refocussing our message around our values. The battle over which direction the party should take on economic matters especially can be a fierce one. It is a vital one, but it can begin to obscure what we are trying to achieve in the first place.
With the focus on these divisions it can become easy to forget what unifies so many in the party and that the vast majority focus on these unifying ideals. That despite our differences over economics and size of the state that our focus is more unified than any other major party. In my eyes, and I hope most will agree, these unifying ideals fall into two parts.
Freedom – Liberty is a vital component that shapes all of our policies. Freedoms to do as you wish, as long as you do not harm others. Freedoms from poverty, violence and ignorance. The state’s role, at its minimum, is to ensure these freedoms. Ensuring that everyone has access to education, food, shelter and warmth. That you are free from the manipulation, coercion or abuse of individuals or corporations. Although members may disagree on how to achieve these freedoms the fact they are the primary target of our policies should be unifying, even if we disagree on the details.
Equality – Tied to, and intertwined with our championing of liberty is our dedication to equality of opportunity. That no matter who you are you are treated equally and according to your needs. That you are free to live up to your potential and you have a equal chance to anyone else to do whatever you want to do. By making no one a slave to poverty or ignorance we help support this drive for equality – but in addition we remain vigilant against discrimination according to race, gender, sexuality, disability, age, wealth or any other factor a part of identity or circumstance. Everyone must have equality before law, government and society.
Liberalism protects you when you’re vulnerable and supports you when you’re strong. Liberalism protects you from harm, and helps you achieve whatever it is you want to achieve.
Yes, there are challenges ahead finding the best way forward to achieve our aims. There are conferences ahead that will shape these policies and are sure to be filled with passionate debate and disagreements. But, for now, let’s find our voice championing loudly and publicly those values we do all support. Disagreements must be the secondary fight within the party, not our primary concern. Right now there are far too many fights against illiberalism in Britain to be fought.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform own goals
Following the course of the River Leen through Nottingham
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
Alex Macfie
Jason Connor
David Le Grice
16 Comments
Hi Tristan. You’ve expressed perfectly something I’ve been thinking for a while now. While Tories clash over Europe and Labour do so over just about anything, we stand united. This is in spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact that every member has the opportunity to vote on Lib Dem policy.
Yesterday Alex H wrote an article about multipotentialism (or something!). One of his key ideas was rapid knowledge dissemination. Basically this means giving activists on the ground all the info they need. I think that should include an answer to the q “What do the Lib Dems stand for?” – a question which you have answered fantastically here.
Thomas — except that what a party stands for is not a matter of information dissemination, it is a matter of consensus.
@Thomas Shakespeare “While Tories clash over Europe and Labour do so over just about anything, we stand united. ”
Surely the evidence of the last 5.5 years is that when push comes to shove, Lib Dems are no more united than any other party.
I think this sums up the largest division within the Lib Dems over the last several years. A gap seems to have arisen between those who emphasise “freedom to do” (perhaps characterised, however unfairly, as “Orange Bookers”) and those who emphasise “freedom from”. I had hoped that Tim Farron’s election to party leader would clarify things but I am a little disappointed that Lib Dems don’t appear to have moved forward in any particular direction.
The party is in good hands with Tim but sadly there are huge numbers of former voters and Labour voters prepared to ‘lend’ their vote who will not come back unless they feel the party has accepted the awful choice that was Coalition. The party could make the journey back a lot easier if it gave an apology for the Bedroom Tuitionl fees etc that didn’t always end with a ‘but’. A total break from the old leadership that is clear and final. I and many people I know will only come back if these things happen. Make it so.
One problem I have with this article is that a supporter from any mainstream party could write the same thing and mean it. Certainly nobody would want to say they oppose the principles espoused here.
The devil is in the detail, and the difficulty (and the differentiation between parties and individuals) is the way that common ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity are converted into real-world policies. I do not believe that Lib Dems presently have a clear vision of what particular set of compromises define their unique position in the political world, and events over the last few years suggest that the party’s position was less of a shared one than many believed.
Quite right, Peter Watson. When it comes to standing together, Lib Dems are no better and no worse than any other party. The BIG difference is our propensity to step on banana skins (AV. Referendum, EU debate, Tuition Fees etc) and to wash our dirty linen in public. Other serious political parties, whilst having just as many problems, tend to close ranks at both local and national level. Call that cynicism if you wish; but when ‘problems’ do occasionally emerge, they rarely form part of political folk lore as our peccadillos usually do.
The danger of trying to be ‘holier than thou’ means that, when that professed halo slips, they throw the book at you! Tristan Gray looks like someone just starting a career in politics, unlike someone like me, who has been around a long time – too long, some may say! He and those who support his views need to be careful that their utterances don’t make them hostages to fortune.
@ John Marriott :
I take it that the NHS ‘reforms’, bedroom tax and other welfare changes are covered by your one word etc.,
David Raw,
You can add them if you want; but they may not be the ones that resonate with the public. Ironically, handled with more subtlety, the two you mention might have not left such a bitter taste. That the NHS needs reform is clear; but why keep throwing the baby out with the bath water? As far as the spare room subsidy (to give it its correct title) is concerned, had there been sufficient smaller properties to accommodate those wishing to move, as well as a better understanding of individual circumstances, it might have been more successful. What both ‘reforms’ illustrate is how little national politicians and civil servants appear to understand how things work on the ground. ‘Out of touch’ is putting it mildly!
Yes we stand for equality of opportunity but the elephant in the corner of the article for me is the omission of equality of outcome.
The Liberal Democrats believe in a fairer more equal society not just one where we all have an equal chance of, for example, becoming massively wealthier than our fellow citizens.
As social justice Liberal Democrats we should champion equality of opportunity AND equality of outcome and be ready to use the powers of a truly representative state to enhance and underpin these fundamental values.
On the ground Lib Dem Councillors are hard-working and get things done, whether it’s local traffic improvement or green initiatives. We must continue to emphasise that message locally – it’s so important.
But nationally we have to set out a forward-looking agenda that is relevant to people now, not as things were ten or even five years ago. Yes, Silvio, we, firstly, have to apologise for the breach of trust that was the tuition fees about turn, which leaves our students paying higher fees than in almost any country in the world…however ‘good’ the repayment terms.
We need an agenda that balances idealism with a commitment to sorting out people’s everyday problems, and raising the taxes to pay for it. People are probably not going to be that worried about GCHQ monitoring their emails, if they can’t afford proper accommodation for their family or they are having to use a Foodbank.
And whilst we don’t want to return to the grammar school system, we could learn much from the rest of Europe about how they organise their secondary education, including offering really high quality apprenticeships for those interested in vocational training (as opposed to the often poor quality apprenticeships offered in the UK which can amount to little more than photocopying opportunities).
I also think working people need better employment rights. For example, a person working on a till in a supermarket, is only entitled to one half hour break when working an eight hour shift. To me that is not enough – and such working practices are bad for people’s health.
We also need to push on with the green agenda, partly because we are learning of strong link between environmental pollution, toxins and poor health.
We desperately need fresh thinking to stay relevant and to show that the Lib Dems are in touch with ordinary people’s lives. Although we should be rooted in idealism, too much talk about ‘liberalism’ can make us seem remote when there are real life problems that need to be sorted out.
This is sound and I disagree that Tories could honestly espouse equality like that or many in either bigger party could be so wedded to freedom. There is one major omission – community. Our core values are liberty, equality and community. Humans are social animals and find freedom and self-realisation with others and freely co-operating with others.
However, our essential unity should not stop us openly and with goodwill debating and exploring areas of disagreement. If we suppress them, we paper over cracks that might not be serious now, but will grow.
Tristan’s ‘apple pie’ vision of Liberalism (which of course I share) will only work within the framework of a sound Liberal economic policy for the 21st century. First and foremost the need is for more even distribution of wealth (through industrial profit sharing for example). We should get our skates on because such an economic framework is surely a votes winner.
@ John. Absolutely. We need a new economic framework, new industrial/business models and a better distribution of wealth…and improved employment rights for the working people who generate that wealth. Oh yes and a fairer tax system, of course. A lot to be getting on with in 2016!
I agree with Stephen Hesketh that equality of opportunity is not enough. All parties, even the Conservatives, agree in principle on that. Much of the inequality is not only due to lack of opportunity and freedom to reach one’s potential, but how through family and community background and ignorance many people do not know how to take advantage of the opportunities that are available., even when they are aware of them. In my piece on LDV about the place of Education in our agenda 2020, I stated that we need as an integral part of our principles, that people receive help to help themselves.
You can provide all the opportunities in the world and those who are able (and usually that means they start from a better position) will take advantage of these and often to the detriment of others.
Stephen Hesheth
What is the point of equal opportunity if there are equal outcomes (for example of wealth)?