A Fresh Start for Britain is the most vacuous suicide note in history with its testosterone laden rallying cries of:
cuts will be necessary to deliver any priorities”
“any new spending will be paid for by a specific cut made elsewhere”
“This means we will not increase public spending overall”
and
We will only include policies in our programme for government once we are certain the necessary resources are available.”
Our leadership is drunk on a cocktail of self flagellation (the hair shirted economics of the balanced budget) and political marketing. Both intoxicating ingredients are as much a product of the Westminster micro-climate as the abuse of allowances.
It was this macho economics which had the leadership advocating tax cuts at Bournemouth while those in the world outside Westminster were experiencing the first blasts of an economic blizzard. The leadership appears to have climbed back onto the Keynesian bandwagon but with little conviction or credibility which is why A Fresh Start schizophrenically advocates (frequently in the same paragraph) large scale public works, cuts in public borrowing, safeguarding employment and being uncertain about ‘what Britain can afford’.
The slump continues. Borrowing is not a problem. Borrowing and other means of creating money by governments is still necessary at this time to counter the destruction of money that occurs when other sectors save more than they borrow and when the velocity of money falls. Demand remains the problem. Expansionary monetary and fiscal policy remain the answer.
But we are assured it is alright because these ‘hard choices made by Liberal Democrats will be firmly guided by our values’ – using market speak these are defined, confined and trivialised as: Fairer, Greener, Safer, Stronger .
But are your values summed up by these sanitised slogans? Even their marketing value has been so diminished as to be almost worthless outside of the political economy of Westminster .
On balance, I would rather be free than live in a fairer world. The campaign for fairness is too often a cloak that hides policies which will inhibit rather than free individuals and their communities. Efforts to increase fairness reduce rather than increase opportunity. This may be counter intuitive to the Westminster elite but on the bus, train, school run and shop corner this apparent paradox is understood and appreciated. The counter intuitive is most often the rational explanation.
Likewise, I’d rather be described as farsighted than ‘green’. We are not the Green Party. Even the most polluting multinational now claims to be green. Consumers see right through their claims so, surely, in today’s climate of cynicism and distrust, the more we claim to be green the more people will mistrust us. That word is now part of Doublespeak and citizens know it.
In a further paradox, a tougher and more challenging world values freedom in the act more than a safer world. We see a love of and a respect for Liberty expressed with extreme bravery in the toughest, most challenging and dangerous circumstances in Iran whilst here basic freedoms are removed without a whimper.
As Jonathan Calder points out elsewhere, in pursuit of a safer world Governments interfere at the micro level with family life but cannot prevent appalling cases of brutality to children; they impose more and more restrictive laws but cannot bring truly violent and organised criminals to justice, and they remove hard won liberties only to increase the potential for acts of terror.
Finally, I don’t want Britain to be stronger. It is as simple as this: We cannot be a force for peace and reconciliation with guns in our hands. More lives are saved, more freedom won, more good done in the world by the ‘neutrals’. There is a peace dividend to be won. Make peace not war.
Therefore the touchstones by which I would assay policies, decisions and campaigns would be Liberal, Farsighted, Challenging, Peace loving. But, rather than declaim them on a non-interactive website, I would express them in campaigns in the streets, the malls, the meeting places, the councils, the parliaments and in the multiple media by which people can be engaged in political activity in our communities.
* William le Breton is a former chair and president of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
15 Comments
I suspect Bill le B has a recent House Points column in mind.
Obscene government debt is not a problem?
Really? You state that with not a shred of evidence or even debate just a statement? PRINTING MONEY is A O.K ???
You talk about double speak and marketing whilst trotting out an argument based on a premise which is in bat-shit-crazy-land.
And offer not one iota of reasoning or even a logical fallacy to back it up!
Ask the Argentinians if public sector debt is not a problem.
Ask Iceland if they think foreigners view of ones currency isn’t a big deal.
As a Marketing Man, I would say that a Fresh Start would have benefited from a website which doesn’t look like a leaflet for a 1960’s Tory Campaign – right down to the ‘stuffed-shirt’ black and white photo of Nick Clegg.
As far as content goes, we remain in uncharted territory. I’m prepared to trust Nick and Vince for the moment.
A Fresh Start, if anything, lacks ambition, but its no suicide note. Some time ago the LibDems asked and received some advice from experts. The two items are took from that were:- 1. Libdems should talk about power and 2. libdems should have a narative. As every Focus writer knows, you don’t win an election by keeping your campaigning secret until the election comes round. Nationally we now have very little time available to set out our stall.
On 1. Vince Cable put it wonderfully in his Q&A session in the Independent today when asked to choose between Brown and Cameron viz:”The LibDems are a viable alternative to both”
The narative starts with:- “The Country has had 30 years of Thatcherite social (there is no such thing as society) and economic (loadsamoney) policies to get us where we are today. Only the Liberal Democrats have the radical policies to change this country for the better and the will to do it” I would support fairness in taxation, health and education; devolution of power to elected Councillors; weaning ourselves off oil and an international outlook reassessing Britain’s role in the world, with a military to match.
I agree with Martin. A convincing message about a fresh start wouldn’t harp on so much about the party’s main competition. As a marketing tool the document is amateurish.
What annoys me most is the continuing refusal to deal head-on with the LibDems’ Achilles Heel – their avid worship of the EU. It’s pie-in-the-sky to think you can de-corrupt the EU and suddenly make it accountable from the inside. Until this mistake is remedied the party will never earn full public confidence or achieve the success it might otherwise deserve. In short, it will never have a chance of implementing the policies it talks so much about.
“Some time ago the LibDems asked and received some advice from experts.”
Ah well that’s OK then! 🙂
“The two items are took from that were:- 1. Libdems should talk about power and 2. libdems should have a narative.”
Yes. The narrative. We’ve been saying “we must have a narrative” since the polls closed in 2005. The fact that we don’t have one suggests that (a) no-one (except Neil Stockley) is capable of expressing what a narrative is and/or (b) working out what it should be isn’t as straightforward as might be though.
“Nationally we now have very little time available to set out our stall.”
Absolutely. Problem is we could be having an October GE when we’ve only discussed the broad principles of our policy platform.
I’m a professional campaigner. In the coming months I should be drafting (among other things) election address leaflets. The problem is this policy paper leaves me with very little idea what I can say in them.
On balance, I would rather be free than live in a fairer world. The campaign for fairness is too often a cloak that hides policies which will inhibit rather than free individuals and their communities.
Too true. The really troubling thing is that you can’t have fairness without freedom. All these policies add more obstacles to the under privileged and opportunity for the powerful to act in their own interests to make the world even less fair.
What a clear, incisive, detailed piece of analysis this article is 😉
Part of me thinks this is about to degenerate into another “left-right” debate, but anyway…
It’s not a political suicide note. A political suicide note is one where you list a whole load of policies you know the electorate, and a fair chunk of your supporters, aren’t going to like – see the infamous 1983 Labour manifesto. I don’t think this comes even remotely close.
Unfortunately, marketing is possibly going to be the key at the next election, and I’m not sure that we’ve quite got it nailed yet. Not because this document doesn’t go into enough detail – but because, if anything, it possibly goes into too much detail. Remember, it’s not aimed at party members who get all worked up about policy – there’s no point preaching to the converted. It needs to get its message across to the general public – and that means people who probably don’t know very much about us and possibly care even less. So the message needs to be simple.
Someone once pointed out to me when writing Focus leaflets that you shouldn’t use words of more than two syllables wherever possible, and no more than two sentences per paragraph. When I asked why, I was told to look at two things – the average reading age for the population (14, I think) and the most popular newspaper (The Sun.) There’s a reason why the Sun is effective at getting its view across – it writes in a way the majority of the population will understand.
In any case, this is a “pre-manifesto.” It’s no more than a vague outline of the policies which we will be covering in the election. Indeed, given the way the economy is just now it would be extremely foolish to publish a detailed list of policies at most 10 months before the GE – what might be suitable now might not be come October or January.
Yes, the OP is right. Printing money is the answer. It worked so well for Gideon Gono and Comrade Bob after all 😉
Let’s be fair. When Clegg finally abandoned his big permanent tax cuts a few months ago, and signed off with a defiant pledge to lead the debate on where spending cuts should fall, he could not reasonably have predicted quite how Labour and the Tories would upstage him. By staging a competition in ludicrous extremism, that’s how.
In the red corner, we have Gordon claiming that public debt can rise indefinitely into the stratosphere – and convincing nobody. In the blue corner, we have cuddly Dave transmuted into curmudgeonly old Doctor Cameron, prescribing that the best treatment for chronic depression is a severe dose of deflation – and convincing the many. This despite the fact that his prescription is economic madness. The old belief that nasty medicine must be good for you dies hard.
So we can’t easily lead the debate. We are condemned to go back to a traditional down-the-middle, milk-and-water Lib Dem stance. We do have an excuse for that. Our opponents are crazy extremists. In the middle – somewhere – is the only good place to be.
Now, how can we make a good “narrative” out of that?
Well, as Bill le Breton indicates – We should be pitching our camp a lot further away from Cameron’s camp. It is the Tory prescription which is dominating the public debate, which is widely believed, which Britain risks putting into practice soon, and which threatens to ruin the nation. We have a role to play. We should be warning, loud and clear, that Dr Cameron is a quack.
“In the blue corner, we have cuddly Dave transmuted into curmudgeonly old Doctor Cameron …”
Sadly, I think that cultural reference will be lost on the “Twitter generation”.
“In the blue corner, we have cuddly Dave transmuted into curmudgeonly old Doctor Cameron …”
Aw man, you’ve totally ruined her for me now.
Speaking of “medicine”, decriminalizing, or even legalizing, drugs should be looked at by Nick. It would be put us in the spotlight and in the news good and proper for once. People would see a real difference between us and the other parties, and it could well change the path of the next election. Tax the drugs, spend much less on the drugs war etc, how would this not be a great policy for the economy? It’s also a green policy too, as George Monbiot will be glad to tell you.
What exactly does gaz guzzler Monbiot know about green policies – pray enlighten me please! As for drugs policy, I really don’t think we should start going down that route to put us in the spotlight again. Freedom to blow your mind, your money and your job. Big yawn!
Well we should be “Green” although obviously not in the hypocritical way that Bill describes. If the word is no longer acceptable, what alternative would you suggest?
I would say it is the most important part of our politics today, so do not leave us with a void.