As (at least) one Lib Dem member commented after the local council elections, “the only way is up” from now on. But to win back support and indeed increase our base we need to refocus. It is right that we should be emphasising our distinctiveness in the coalition, but we need to do a lot more. We need to clearly articulate what we stand for, and communicate it relentlessly to the electorate. In the same way that the more tribal parties will repeat over and over again the same phrase so that people end up parroting them (regardless of whether, in their case, they are actually true), we need to adopt a similar approach so that people clearly know what they are voting for when they vote Lib Dem. It is about creating a clear brand. It is no longer enough to be the party of protest.
We need to recognise that we have been the party of protest for a long time. What can we learn from this?
- Lots of the electorate who actually vote (and bear in mind that of those who are actually registered to vote, 35 % chose not to exercise that right in 2010) did not vote Tory or Labour last time–I think it was about 57% of actual voters chose Tory or Labour. This was the lowest percentage ever for either of the two main parties. If this lack of faith in the two main parties persists (and it probably will as their polarised ideologies are increasingly irrelevant in the modern world), coalitions are more likely, or we could be subject to the very unpalatable circumstance of even less people voting and a party being able to form a majority government with what is a tiny share of the overall electorate. I think we can be reasonably confident that there has been (and we must not let this tide reverse) a growing unease and lack of faith in the two main parties, and that a credible third party is essential. We are that party.
- The fact that we have – after our disastrous showing in May – a core support level of maybe 15%, shows that we cannot only be a party of protest. So we have to build on this 15% over the next three years by clearly articulating what being a centrist party means. We have to point out what a different party we are in every way:
- our democratically determined, detailed and well articulated policies (sensible and evidence-based vs. ideological and dogma-based)
- the way we transact both party business and local/national politics (democratic vs. autocractic; empowering vs. creating dependency (Labour) or semi-feudal (Conservative)
- people-focussed, not party-focussed. The clearest example of this recently is our concern over voting reform (though clearly our concerns as Lib Dems were never articulated accurately in the media in particular) : us (democratic) wanting to give people more voice, them (tribal) wanting to ensure their own survival. Also lots of examples from local politics, that we do not shout loudly about enough.
- progressive – truly progressive – in a way that Labour cannot claim anymore and the Tories have no real interest in anyway
Given we have a core supporter base and those 15% know they are not Tory and not Labour, we need to communicate what makes us Lib Dem and what being centrist means in broad policy terms (eg what does “centrist” mean for education, NHS, defence, etc?). Increasingly we have seen both the Tories and Labour appeal to the middle, centre ground in order to get elected. They know that their appeal is running thin and they need to modernise, though they still have a core tribal vote that can get them elected. But there are concerns within each party–I suspect–that demographically speaking the clock is ticking as their tribal vote literally dies (look, also, at the massive fall in political party membership). Thus it is essential that this vital centre ground is not claimed by either party and that we not only cling on to it, but articulate it, communicate it and enlarge it.
We are a broad church, just as the other parties are, but we display this a bit too much in public, in a way that the others do not. Developing and sticking to our commonly agreed “centrist” identity will be key going forward in being able to enlist and cement support.
Can I suggest that the branding exercise commences immediately? There truly has never been a better or more urgent time to do it.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
Peter Martin
Katharine Pindar
Mary Reid
Ken Westmoreland
41 Comments
You say you have to start listening to the people and yet you continue to ignore the most important issue which is our membership to the EU. The vast majority of the Electorate want a referendum yet you allow Clegg to bully his MP’s into supporting HIS ideology. Just before the last General Election the lib-dems promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, this was very quietly removed from your manifesto which was no doubt Cleggs doing, i was one of the people that voted for the lib-dems because of your stance regarding the Lisbon Treaty only to find out after the election that you had done a “U” turn on this issue. I have no doubt that you realise that the people look on the lib-dem party as the “U” turn party which is going to be so costly come the next election. The people no longer trust the lib-dems and this is being reflected in the polls and no matter how much you talk amongst yourselves, as long as you wear those rose tinted glasses and continue to have tunnel vision with your emphasis on Clegg as the messiah, your standings in the polls will diminish year on year.
Helen – sorry to be pedantic but a couple of your numbers are a bit dodgy.
The combined vote share for Labour and Tories at the 2010 general election was 65.1% (I got this from Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010 but there are lots of sources you could go to), not 57%. This makes quite a big difference because instead of potentially having 43% of the electorate not voting Blue or Red (and hence perhaps being easier for us to target) it is more like 35% which is over a fifth less than you suggest.
The second one I would query is your suggestion that the Lib Dem core vote is 15%. The polls have mostly had us well below this since last year. Some have had us as low as 8% and the average is going to be more like around 10% or 11%. I suspect that is where the core vote really is. I appreciate 15% or so voted for the party in the local elections but there are so many factors that could have affected this (differential turnout for Scottish and Welsh elections, AV referendum etc.) that it is risky to extrapolate from it to assume it tells us where our national vote share is at. Of course I hope our polling figures improve and I would love to be proved wrong on this but we should not kid ourselves about the scale of the task we face. You are implying we have lost around a third of our voters since May 2010. I reckon it’s more like half.
No, no, and yet again no. This exhortation to engage in the commodification of politics, of our party’s political principles, is straight out of the corrosive playbook which has led to the corruption and hollowing out of American politics. And if anyone thinks that after May the only way is up is going to be in for a shock – the public punished us because of the Tory policies that we supported and enabled, and all the protestations about how much of our manifesto is enacted didnt make a blind bit of difference. We have collaborated with the Tories in the single greatest act of plunder inflicted on the ordinary people of Britain since, well, since the heyday of Thatcherism. Until we recognise that, we will continue along in Cameron’s handcart to hell, bound for a rendezvous with ignominy and political oblivion. Until we cut free of the coalition and prove to the electorate that we really are on their side, all else is vanity and denial.
As for claiming the centre ground – well, the problem with trying to claim the centre ground is the necessity of inclusionism, which leads to you trying to include and accomodate political views and aims which you privately loathe. Which is exactly what has come to pass. Contrary to the vapid claims of the leadership, grown-up politics is about retaining a strong grip on principle and reason and compassion, not selling out the party’s soul for a chalice of power which is poisoning us with every sip.
Agree totally with Mike Cobley’s final comments regarding where we need to be as compared with leadership claims.
I find it difficult to accept Helen’s case that we should be “centrist”. Throughout my 40+ years in the Liberal Party and the Lib Dems, we have usually regarded ourselves, and been looked on as a “radical” party (not radical – rightwing – as used by Margaret Thatcher). In case you weren’t there at that time, Helen, we fought Thatcher and Thatcherite policies vigorously in the 80s. And we were mightily unimpressed by Blair when he took on board many aspects of Thatcherite policy and principle.
I have noticed, both in your post, and in comments from others, references to “the party of protest”. I had thought this was a reference to an inability to accept any governing or administrative policy. But I am beginning to come to the conclusion that it is a reference to those of us who do not accept the “Thatcherite consensus” on economics. It seems to me that if I am understanding correctly, at a time when the world has been turned on its head economically is just the time we need to say that we DO need a new (or new version of an old) politics and economics. Many of us over the years have struggled to bring it to birth, only to find that we have a party that has itself accepted too much of the consensus described.
@Tim13: Yes, we fought Thatcherism, but we also fought the left-wing Labour party of the time (including the Foot-led mainstream, Militant and the “loony left”). Between the two main parties with their positioning at the time, we were defninitely centrist.
Alex, yes, we did. But that was often because the mainstream Labour Party was “machine-led” in those days, and the “left” (Militant etc) were highly illiberal. Certainly many in our generation who joined Grimond’s Liberals didn’t want anything to dowith Labour because it was accepted that you went along with all the Trade Union and other related shibboleths. I am quite prepared to think that there was a more liberal regine in place in the late 60s and early 70s with Roy Jenkins and when Shirley Williams was Education Sec. I also tend to think that Michael Foot was a lot more (small ‘l’) liberal than he would ever concede – no doubt having ‘rebelled” against his westcountry Liberal family n his early years!
It is, of course, particularly topical to be having this debate now, at a time when Murdoch is under pressure, considering his major role in moving British politics rightwards!
I think there is a tendency for politicians to categorise voters as protest voters – either you are or your are not. However public perception of politics is so low these days I can’t help thinking that if you exclude “protest” voters then there arn’t many people left who do vote.
I think this kind of categorisation doesn’t help us at all.
Response to Mark Thompson. Hi Mark, I got the 57% from the Electoral Reform Society analysis of the 2010 election–link here: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/images/dynamicImages/file4de7523b587fb.pdf. Maybe they are wrong? I would have thought they if anyone should have it correct! I apologise if it is incorrect.
RE: the 15%. I took this as a reliable figure of grass roots support, because it was actually at an election, the local elections in May, rather than opinion polls. I would have thought that should be a reliable figure, particularly as things had got really, really bad, as regards toxic Nick syndrome.
But the point about our actual level of support is the interesting one to me, because we cannot assume that all people were voting for us because they actually wanted us. For many it was simply a vote because they very actively did not want someone else. That is why I think it is so important that we look to what we actually stand for and communicate that to voters. It is no longer good enough to do the old “it’s a two-horse race” style of campaigning, because people next time are going to thinking longer and harder about voting Lib Dem, even if just a tactical vote to keep a Tory out ,for example, because of our record in actual government. it may be more likely that they vote Green or UKIP, or another minority party as a gesture of protest.
Building on the 15% and communicating what we stand for is key.
To Mike Cobley. OK, Mike, what do we stand for then? Is that not what a political party is all about? It is about adopting a clear and consistent position that people can engage with and hopefully identify with enough to vote for them.
I agree that our leadership have not done an exemplary job of clarifying our Lib Dem position in Government. That is why we as members need to be continually holding them to account whenever we get the opportunity (particularly as we are a democratic party), and to begin a continuing dialogue, as a party, with people everywhere in the country so that they can begin to understand the core of what Lib Dems stand for.
Also, we should own the centre ground, and you can be principled and have strong beliefs and be centrist. To put it simplistically, if you imagine the political spectrum as a straight line that runs left to right, then clearly you would have Communists on the extreme left, then Labour further along, then Social Lib Dems, then Liberals, then Conservatives, then Libertarians, then the BNP, crudely speaking. So we have to look at the centre and ask what defines it? Because that is where we are, and more importantly from an electioneering point of view, where voters think we are. A recent opinion poll on attitudes put a clear majority of people as espousing centrist views. Therefore defining the centre ground becomes key.
@Mike Colbey:
We have collaborated with the Tories in the single greatest act of plunder inflicted on the ordinary people of Britain since, well, since the heyday of Thatcherism. Until we recognise that, we will continue along in Cameron’s handcart to hell, bound for a rendezvous with ignominy and political oblivion. Until we cut free of the coalition and prove to the electorate that we really are on their side, all else is vanity and denial.
—
Bravo! At least someone here actually gets it.. What we are seeing is the greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top that we have ever seen. The free market has failed and yet we have the Tories and LibDems telling us we need even “freer” markets. Since entering the Coalition, the LibDems have been 100% on the side of the bankers and the establishment. What you have been doing, by and large, is making life harder for those whose side you want to be on. And you tell us there is no alternative. There is always an alternative.
The problem is nobody in your party has the guts to stand up to Cameron on behalf of those the cuts are hitting. You accept all the cuts and seem to not care that they hit the most vulnerable the most.
To hell with the spivs in the city, to hell with what the “markets” want. When is a politician going to stand up and give the people what they want?
To Tim13. I agree that we have been (and hopefully still are) a radical party and have found it easy to build up a narrative around radical policies (largely because we have never come close to actually having to deliver on them). Most of us in the Lib Dems are passionate about promoting a fairer, more just society, and are highly principled. That’s one of the main reasons I joined the Lib Dems.
Putting radical ideas into practical policy is extremely difficult. But I still think it is right to be radical where a policy is clearly not working, as a way of initiating movement way from the existing policy. And this is where we have to keep holding the leadership to account, to make sure that we are chipping away in the right direction, and they continue to introduce radical ideas into the political arena.
Finally I think you can be radical and centrist–just look at how different we are from the two other parties: strong on devolution of power from Whitehall; strong on democracy; strong on distributing power and money (through fairer taxes for example), rather than concentrating them. We are radical in the way we would actually govern if we got the chance, and are very different to the two “command and control” parties in this respect.
We need to be showing people how we are different, irrespective of what our ministers are having to do in government in their compromised positions.
To Geoff: Ok then, Geoff, how do we start distinguishing ourselves in the eyes and mind of the public? We have to start somewhere, and people do tend to categorise–it’s a way of making sense of the world!
Talking of “selling” and “brands” is not particularly nice, but it is the way the world now works, like it or not!
Here’s a contentious and radical point of discussion for you: Our communications since we entered Government have only been a hindrance. We could possibly have retained more public support by beefing up our comms unit and getting rid of the campaigns team!!
Andy Coulson, though, would definitely have been a step too far!
I will readily accept that it is difficult to put ANY new policy into action, and probably the more different from current policy, the more difficult it becomes. That is one reason why I have normally been a gradualist rather than a revolutionary. Any new policy normally means there are some “losers”, and for practical politics to have a chance, those losing need time to adapt to a new approach. In terms of the equitable operation of society, we have come to a point where some large scale redistribution is required (the gap between segments of society, having narrowed over the previous 120 years or so, has been widening rapidly again – this is damaging). You mentioned fair taxation measures, Helen, as an example of something needing doing. We also have a very serious set of environmental constraints which means that we cannot continue to consume natural resources, and displace wildlife and ecosystems as we have.
Unless we were to accept that we don’t really mean what we say, the Liberals and Lib Dems over my memory, have always espoused “fair and green” policies. Yes, they may be difficult to implement, but if we believe in them, we have to do two things 1) Work out how to communicate them in the best way possible, and 2) Work on ways to implement them when involved in Government. Since we have been in Government, we have used every excuse under the sun to keep progress on some issues minimal – and it’s not just because we are a minority coalition partner. That’s aside, of course, from policies where we have gone backwards, eg disability policy and benefits, support for nuclear power etc. One excuse, I must say, I especially despise, is saying that we advocated certain policies when we were not in Govt (but, implied, that we only said them thinking we would not be in a position to actually introduce them, but didn’t really believe them or want to put them into practice!)
In terms of your “left to right continuum”, Helen, I note you haven’t mentioned Greens. I would have thought our Preamble to the Constitution, and many mainstream Lib Dem activists, were definitely to the left of much of the Labour Party. So I think to trumpet Centrism would do what Mike Cobley has said, give people a wrong impression of where we stand, and people want politicians who stand by what they believe.
“OK, Mike, what do we stand for then? Is that not what a political party is all about? It is about adopting a clear and consistent position that people can engage with and hopefully identify with enough to vote for them.”
Yes, absolutely, agree 100% – only problem is that we are reluctant to actually grapple with the fundamental problems afflicting our country as a democratic nation. The great majority of the invidious problems that we face as a society are the direct consequences of the policies of the Right and especially the corporate/finance/owned-media system. Surely by now, after a century of struggle and reform, Labour’s postwar reforms, the clash with the Thatcherite wreckers and their rotten spawn, we would have learned that market mechanisms should not be allowed anywhere near the provision of essential public services. I mean, that seems pretty fundamental to me and blindingly obvious. Yet here we have Clegg and his coterie dragging us into the slimey embrace of the Tories and crooning his hymns of cooperation and ‘owning’ coalition policy. Yup, throwing 100s of thousands out of work while strutting around, slapping each other on the back and announcing how proud he is to be in government. Gee, that must have gone down like a cup of cold sick in towns and cities up and down the land, and sure enough, when May’s elections brought us within range of the electorate they opened up with both barrels.
It just seems very clear to me that you only get to call yourself a progressive if you actually make people’s lives better. And before you hoist the Deficit Monster balloon, I`ll just pop it by asking why HMRC has arranged so many sweetheart deals with this or that big corporation (Vodafone, anyone?), if the Deficit Monster was about to eat us all? That and other aspects of macrofinance have convinced me that there is no deficit crisis; there is a deficit problem, which could be largely solved by say a 2-year emergency increase in taxes for upper earners (and for wealthy corporations), 2 years and the deficit would have had the wind taken out of its sails. Instead, we get austerity and service cuts and job cuts resulting in – Tadaa! – falls in tax revenue, a collapse in consumption, shops closing all over, and a cold wind sliding through the country as the utility companies continue to jack up rates and tarrifs while posting fat profits.
So there you are, a brief and incomplete summary of just a few injustices which this party is tarred with.
Clarifying our position in government doesnt matter a damn when you’re providing votes to keep in power a party which root and branch is hell bent on wrecking the compassionate fundamentals of a civilised society – yes, by shoehorning market mechanisms into every nook and corner, by providing profit centres and revenue streams to their chortling mates in the City and elsewhere. Dont get me wrong – the market has its place and function, but the core functions of the market ethos are implacably opposed to the core functions of genuine public services.
As for your perception that the majority of voters hold centrist views, I would say that is a fantasy. Attitude surveys matter little when jobs are on the line and the disadvantaged are forced to choose between eating and heating. This party, and indeed its predecessor parties, were foursquare in favour of social justice and the rights of the individual, including the right to act collectively. Taken along with long-held positions on electoral reform and overall parliamentary reform, we have been a left of centre party, like it or not. The centre belongs to pseudo democrats like Obama who has frittered away his presidency trying to triangulate and mid-position himself to the point where he is now actually contemplating cuts in America’s state pension system, and in Medicare. The centre is not for me, nor I imagine is it for the majority of the party’s membership.
Most voters vote AGAINST parties and FOR people.For Liberal Democrats to emerge from our present position requires confident Liberal individual to show the electorate that we are on their side.
@Helen, there is nothing wrong at all about categorising people, I just don’t think the term “protest” voter is well defined. What percentage of the general public would you say are protest voters? Does that include everyone who is angry about the war in Iraq, the expences scandal, the banking fiasco or tuition fees? Add them together and that may well be a large majority of the British people.
Your point about how else would I go about rebranding, I think that is a hard question given where we are now. I certainly think we need to be more assertive, and consistently so, so that people notice. I think the party leadership has been too enthusiastic in supporting Tory policies like Free Schools and Academies and we would have got more credit if we said no. In the end the Tories can’t get their policies through unless the Lib Dems give them a Parliamentary majority.
@ Ben Sheperia: I rejoined the Party before the last GE because of the undertaking that an In/Out referendum on our membership of the EU was Party policy. This is the reason that was given for not supporting a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. This, as we know, did not appear in the Party manifesto. [I have since allowed my membership to lapse]
I think Helen’s assumption that the Party’s core support is 15% is a fantasy – NC is not liked by the voters and he has done nothing to improve his standing. Everyone must know in their hearts that, unless something significant happens before the next GE, the Party will be all but wiped out – it is like watching a car crash in slow motion.
I would have thought it was also pretty clear that, even if the economy does make a marked improvement – in itself greatly in doubt, any credit for this will go to Osborne as this has been portrayed as, essentially, Tory policy.
I do agree that the Party must demonstrate how it is different from the Tories. However, it would be a good idea to ensure that the Lib/Dem differences identified are popular with the electorate. The latest differential, that Cameron is eurosceptic and NC fully supports further integration, seems to be akin to an addendum to a suicide note, coming at a time when there is an increasing wish to leave the Union.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-and-david-cameron-split-over-europe-2308882.html
John R – If it really does happen that these last few days have been momentous in politics, and we are heading for a more honest media (I think the jury is very much out on that one), we may actually have some sensible reporting about the EU and other international institutions, we might see a lot of mind changing on this. You never know, you might even change your mind yourself! Though I am not holding my breath on that one!!
@Tim: I am always prepared to be persuaded by reasoned argument. However, it seems more like a religious faith, to those who support our membership, than rationality.
@ Geoffrey Payne
“In the end the Tories can’t get their policies through unless the Lib Dems give them a Parliamentary majority.”
And in the end, we can’t get our policies through unless the Tories give us a parliamentary majority. That is what being in a coalition is about.
@ Mike Cobley
“the public punished us because of the Tory policies that we supported and enabled, and all the protestations about how much of our manifesto is enacted didnt make a blind bit of difference. We have collaborated with the Tories in the single greatest act of plunder inflicted on the ordinary people of Britain since, well, since the heyday of Thatcherism”
No, the public punished us because we happened to go into government at a time when the public finances were in a mess and the underlying state of the UK economy is still appalling, due to previous mismanagement. We just happen to have been there when the **** hit the fan. What “act of plunder” is it that you are referring to exactly?
I still think people are missing the point here. It is all very well bewailing what is going on in government. But we have to remember is we are only about a seventh in numbers of seats in the government. Imagine it was the other way round, and we held six sevenths of the seats and the Tories one seventh? How many mad right wing policies, such as free schools and privatising the NHS do you think would get through?
Context and numbers are everything and that has to be communicated to the electorate so that their expectations are not raised too high over the impact we can make. We can bluster as much as we like about “being in Government”, as though we are suddenly so important. But we have always to add the proviso that people mainly voted for the Tories, and so when you vote Tory, these policies and this ideology is what you get–it’s not rocket science!
If people do want a truly different government, they have to vote for it. I think there are significant factors which make us very different from the other parties, which I have described before in this blog and subsequent comments. But we have to COMMUNICATE this!!! And we are not doing.
And by the way–I am happy with the centre ground–I think it is the only ground which really makes sense and is sustainable in the long term, rather than the crash-crash from left to right.
(I have always thought it perverse, by the way, that one of the main attractions of FPTP as consistently stated by Cameron is that it allows you to “throw the buggers out”. I would rather not have an electoral system whose only advantage is that it can cope with failure!)
We should be talking about sustainable policies–and there is no reason at all why they cannot be radical–in fact I am a long-time advocate for radical policy– as long as they actually make sense in a rapidly changing world.
A previous commenter was right–we are a party for the people, which I think puts us very firmly in the centre. Let’s build on it and communicate it.
While there seems to be some controversy over her claim that we’re “centrist”, Helen’s main point seems to be widely agreed on: people don’t know what we stand for. Heck, I’ve been a member for over a year, read several books on us and am still largely in the dark on our policies over many issues.
When Helen talked about protest votes I think she was talking about people who vote for us because they’re such of both Labour and Tory and HOPE we will offer something new. I think that the point of her article is that we can only gain real support by giving people a more concrete idea of what we plan to do.
Btw, I’ve noticed some criticism about our deficit reduction plan. I’m not enjoying them either, but I’m yet to see ANYONE show me a coherent alternative. All I hear about is about the pain and damage it will cause. Fine, I agree with that but until someone shows me a better plan it all amounts to purposeless complaining.
@ Helen: “We can bluster as much as we like about “being in Government”, as though we are suddenly so important”.
I fully agree – if the Party does not wish to be mortally tainted by Tory policies and, since something significant needs to happen if it is to survive in any meaningful form after the next GE, it should pull out of the Coalition and agree policies issue by issue. In this way it could begin to recover its individuality.
This can be justified on the grounds that it is, now, impossible to retain normal relationships with Tory ministers, since it is impossible to know which are independent and which are simply Murdoch’s puppets.
“what do we stand for, then?”
At present we appear to stand for supporting the transfer of wealth and income from the poor and middle income groups to the very rich (million + annual income) and the extremely rich, in cahoots with the Tories. Oh and “bringing democracy to the Middle East” ie invading oil rich states with the USA.
I didn’t think that was what LDs were about, but you have to look at facts.
What do we stand for – that the Tories can’t and won’t do? Transfering wealth to the already wealthy is why the tories exist. They can’t do anything else. They can do community politics just as well as we do, because it doesn’t matter, as long as the money goes to the wealthy.
and – that Labour can’t and won’t do? I think that would be standing up to producer interests in favour of the consumer and citizen, whether those producer interests are unions, overmighty media moguls, professional associations (lawyers, doctors) or anything else.
But until I see some evidence that we aren’t just tory apologists, I think the only way from here is down, actually.
Ok, let’s make a start in terms of defining what we actually stand for. I think this is what we stand for:
1. We are for policies which promote the public interest and are against policies that protect vested interests
2. We are for devolving power and for policies promoting subsidiarity
3. We are progressive in recognising the fact that society is constantly evolving and the so the policy space has to be flexible enough to embrace and promote change (where obvious and necessary) for it to maximise what is in the public’s interest at any point in time.
4. We are democratic, both in our processes and in our outlook, which is one of fundamental respect for each person’s rights
5. We are for re-distribution of society’s assets and we promote equality, in full recognition of the fact that each person has “one life to live”, and accumulations of wealth and power do not foster community values or aid in promoting what is in the public interest.
6. We respect and promote liberty, but only insofar as it does not impede another individual’s liberty
7. We are for sustainable policies which are based primarily on evidence and experience, rather than dogma or ideology.
8. We are green and recognise that respect for the planet is fundamental to being able to lead fulfilling, respectful and purposeful lives.
These are the qualities and viewpoints I largely recognise when I meet another Liberal Democrat. Any other suggestions?
Apart from maybe point 2, I think the average labour supporter would say the own thing about their own party.
I think more than just give a set of nice sounding principles we need to make direct comparisons between the other two parties and back it up with concrete examples of policy.
E.g. Labour try to control everything through Whitehall while we
@ Helen F: Becoming a European Commissioner as a reward for services rendered to the Tory Party?
Apart from maybe point 2, I think the average labour supporter would say the own thing about their own party.
I think more than just give a set of nice sounding principles we need to make direct comparisons between the other two parties and back it up with concrete examples of policy. This will help underline our uniqueness and demonstrate the alternatives we offer.
E.g. Labour try to control everything through Whitehall (insert concrete examples of where they do this) while we feel there should be more local control with less beaurocracy (insert concrete examples of plans/policies that will achieve this)
My simplified take on it is that Labour often had their heart in the right place when it came to funding but often ruined it with a centralised and beaurocratic approach. The Tories also seem very centralised (despite recent claims to be otherwise) and tend to be less willing to invest the money too. We can offer the best of both wields by investing properly AND taking a more decentralised approach. But we need to do more to communicate this and show how it will work in practice.
I am nowhere near the centre. Neither is the party. And nor are some of the values / policies you outline. While centre is a moving target, its main purpose is to show us if we have drifted too far to the Right.
We are a party of the Left, or nothing. And historically always have been. Indeed, we have been to the Left of Labour during most of its existence. Perhaps the only times when we haven’t been is when Labour has b een in the ascendency, notably after both world awards.
If we are to get any votes at all in 2015, we need to stand on a radical and exciting platform. Voters will by then be tired of austerity and falling living standards.
We need to start with our three Rs: Redistribution, Redistribution and Redistribution.
* Redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the poor.
* Redistribution of power, from the powerful to the people.
* Redistribution of rights and responsibilities, from those who misuse them to those who should properly exercise them; eg, pension fund and insurance policholders should be consulted about how their institution should vote as shareholders on corporate policies.
And don’t tell me those are policies of the centre.
@RC: What “act of plunder” is it that you are referring to exactly?
—
Don’t know about him, but that fact that disabled people are being asked to face the largest cuts of any one group is plundering to me. Our government could have said “we are not going to make the weakest and the poorest in society pay for the mistakes of bankers and politicians.” LibDems agreed with this before the election. But making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich is exactly what is happening.
It’s a shame that when the Coalition was formed, Clegg and you lot decided that the poorest were just going to have to contribute the most towards the cuts. We can’t make the rich or the bankers pay because, gosh, they’ll leave the country.
I am disabled but due to DLA am able to work. This is being cut drastically and if my DLA is cut I will not be able to work at all, which will cost the government even more. My local library is being closed down. A support group for disabled people I go to is being shut. In my work I help fellow disabled people with many issues. Legal aid, which is essential for low-income people is being cut drastically. Worker protections are being relaxed in the guise of “cutting red tape”. I could go on and on. But none of these things will hurt the rich. The rich can buy books, they don’t need a library. The rich can afford to not worry about what they will do when their only lifeline, benefits, are cut. Rich people won’t miss legal aid or a cut-back NHS.
But, sadly, the solution to our debt problems is to make more pensioners and sick/disabled people choose between heating and food in the winter time. LibDems used to be against this very idea but it is now, somehow, it is considered “fair” and “progressive” to ask our weakest to shoulder the biggest burden. Your party is committed to freeing everyone from the slavery and despair of poverty. Great. It’s just a shame you ‘re doing the opposite in government.
Some fine contributions, particularly from Mike Cobley and Tim13.
@Helen Flynn. “Can I suggest that the branding exercise commences immediately? There truly has never been a better or more urgent time to do it.”
I have a quibble, but an important one. It’s not branding that’s needed but product development. Even if a Martian had just arrived on Earth knowing nothing about our politics, he would understand from this thread alone that the Lib Dems don’t have any workable consensus about what they are trying to achieve (and I’m sorry, but a list of Good Things simply doesn’t qualify). What we have actually been persuing for 20 years is the Overton Window (from Wikipedia: “At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office.”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
The key is, I think, the bit about gaining public office. Whatever the radical instincts of the majority of the Party, the leadership has always been obsessed only with how to gain office. Per Overton, radical is seen as too risky and debate is kept subtly but firmly confined within safe bounds while the Party obsesses over the promise of a hung Parliament and the petty power that might bring.
So, I don’t see myself as a centrist, not one little bit. I want to understand why society is so screwed up and, flowing from that, how we can fix it. I want to drag the Overton window to a new position on the political spectrum by showing up Tory thinking for what it is – the thinly-disguised justification of vested interests as full of holes as a bucket made of chicken wire. That is a truly radical project because it will involve challenging some powerful vested interests. It is a difficult project because society is an incredibly complex mechanism that can be as easily damaged as mended. Yet the party has not yet taken the first steps to put itself in position to tackle this great task and that is why I say product development is where it’s at.
Actually, I think that society can probably only cope with just one great political idea at a time. From the end of WW2 to the late 1970s that was socialism, watered down in practice but accepted by the vast majority of Conservative voters (the ‘One Nation’ wing of the Party) in a way that is almost inconceivable today.
This consensus eventually broke down amid economic failure and strikes and Labor has never really recovered. Thatcher brought in a new politics, now generally known as neo-liberalism – markets-as-God, privatisation and the rest – which dominated political thinking for the next 30+ years. They lost office for a time but NuLabour had no workable alternative so they went along with a higher-spending version of much the same.
This consensus has now broken down amid a epidemic of crony capitalism (privatise the profits, socialise the losses), looting of the public by corrupt financial elites and economic collapse (which is about to get much, much worse by the way). Thye banking system, until recently the UK’s supposed economic jewel in the crown, is hopelessly insolvent and staggers on only on taxpayer life support. We face a crisis greater than the Great Depression compounded by the fact that we are perilously close to peak oil.
In short, the existing political thinking is bankrupt and thas is the perfect time to come forward with a fresh approach. Except that the Party establishment has drunk the Tory Kool Aid and settled for a ministerial car.
This thread is not the place to expound an alternative political economy, suffice to say I think one is emerging. But is anyone listening?
Liberal Eye – Thanks for your comments. You won’t be surprised to hear that substantially I agree with your analysis. At least we may have another kind of window – of opportunity, with the media and esp the Murdoch bit of it going through a storm. We may be able to use that time to develop the product, and at least plant the seeds in an environment in which they have a good chance of germinating!
Can I suggest: if people want to start talking about positions and positioning (left, right, centre, radical, moderate, extreme etc) then LibDems ought to take a more open-minded approach to understand that it is the way the party successfully encompasses many competing viewpoints to find a workable balance which distinguishes it from other groups.
LibDems support a pluralistic approach where we understand that we can disagree with each other in a mature way, but that this requires that we value all constructive contributions and learn the insights we each have to offer.
We can talk about policies and give personal judgements, but even by just reading through this thread its a simple task to see the mindsets which motivate each person. Good communication means more than just talking clearly, it is also about understanding the process.
So let me pick up on this line “you have to start listening to the people” – this is code for affecting a display of change.
Where people draw on this to push for their prefered issue, such as a referendum on EU membership (generally meaning they want the UK to leave), we should not just nod our heads but we should stand up and offer more leadership: UK sovereignty is not diminished by membership of the EU, rather our overall amount of sovereignty is increased by our ability to pool it – the sum is greater than the parts, and the sum would be even greater were we to spend more time improving the parts rather than trying to dismantle the imperfect product.
I’m not for gesture politics, as the only meaningful displays are those which truly reflect what’s going on out of sight. So I don’t agree with arguments that we have to start listening – we need to continue listening and we need to continue representing those steady voices which get drowned out in the maelstrom of emotive debate.
@ Oranjepan: Although you may consider it emotive, sometimes precision is required – when an issue is momentous. In the case of our membership of the EU, momentous is not an overstatement for we are concerning ourselves with the removal of, hard won, democracy from this nation.
The Party leadership lied when it said that the reason it would not support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was because the needed referendum was one on our very membership of the Union.
Although the statement was true, its use was merely a device to avoid supporting a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty – just in case the motion was carried, for it was clear, at that time, any such referendum of the people would reject the Treaty.
The lie was proven when the same leadership did not include this referendum in the 2010 Manifesto. Your suggestion that ‘UK sovereignty is not diminished by membership of the EU, rather our overall amount of sovereignty is increased by our ability to pool it – the sum is greater than the parts’ may sound warm and cuddly, but does not stand up to examination.
This can best be explained if considered in terms of a household. Imagine you moved to a village of 27 houses where there was a village council that had the power to determine, by majority vote, what rules applied in each household and these rules were decided by a group of representative – one from each household.
If this group decided that members of any household could enter the homes of any other family, whenever they wished, put the TV on, raid the fridge, have a drunken party and disturb granny by sleeping in her room – would you not consider the sovereignty of your home diminished?
Would you feel this invasion was more than compensated for knowing that you, yourself, could go to the other homes in the village and act in a similar way?
To continue the analogy, if the practice in each household was to elect a leader every 5 years, who could change any unpopular house rules once in office, but this right ceased once the village council was established – democracy would have ended in your household.
Once changes demand the agreement of the majority of the village council members – that council becomes a dictatorship as far as each individual household is concerned.
The dictatorship that the EU has become is far more subtle than those of Gaddafi or Assad, but as we saw in Greece, when those protesting against EU dictates were subdued, it is just as red in tooth and claw.
Tsk, and dammit – now Ed’s getting in on the game!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14097575
Ed Miliband is standing at the centre of UK politics…and monkeys might fly out of my butt!
Liberal Eye, I agree with your expose of what is wrong. And you ask “is anyone listening?” Well, yes we are, or at least those of use who already are interested in politics and involved and aware of what is happening on the macro level.
Problem is the vast majority of the population is happily afflicted by “Soma for the masses” and is not remotely interested in the macro–just the micro, ie how it all affects THEM, a feature of the 30 year neo-liberal crusade.
Which is a situation that Tories in particular are very happy with. It’s the classic ‘bread and circuses’ scenario.
Imagine any other sector or profession having an approval rating as low as either of the two largest parties, if you factor in those not registered to vote? If they had any decency (I know that is a contradiction in terms, but you can dream!) they should be holding an enquiry into why they are consistently failing to engage people in voting, ie failing in their basic role.
Worst still, look how it breaks down: only 40% of those aged 18-24 bothered to vote in the last GE, whilst the aged and the baby boomers hogged the polls, ensuring that the bus pass, heating allowance and index-linking of pensions were firm guarantees. Our young people are getting stuffed, and demographically that’s not going to change any time soon with that massive baby boomer cohort moving through, living till 85 or 90, and knowing that voting matters.
So how do we engage voters, and particularly the young?? Yes, as Liberal Eye says, we have to get the product right, I agree, but that will largely pass the majority of people by, though important–and vital– to develop it.
I maintain that it is developing a narrative that can be readily communicated, and yes, a brand, that is absolutely key. That is what people understand these days.
No-one at Cowley Street is doing this work, either because they simply have not got the time, or because they do not realise how vital it is.
@John Roffey
Your analysis is indicative of a lazy and short-termist outlook which I, for one, cannot accept.
Your question “would you not consider the sovereignty of your home diminished?” would have some relevance if the analogy was nearly accurate. But it isn’t. There’s a line for this: ‘no man is an island’ – ie sovereignty is never an absolute, it is always defined by reference to neighbours.
Even those non-EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland accept they will exist within a diplomatic framework based on a network of bilateral and multilateral relationships which go beyond the constitution of any current institutions, formal or informal. Yet, as members of the EU we send delegates to represent the country to EU institutions which enables us to influence any situation we are unhappy about, and you are thereby able to hold those individuals more accountable instead of ‘sitting on the sidelines’ as others do.
By comparison there has never been a LibDem government in my lifetime in this country (coalition is the closest so far) and I am unhappy about a whole range of issues which I think would be handled better were that fact not the case. But I don’t advocate any sort of secession from Britain as a result – politics isn’t a game, it is about real people’s lives. If you don’t like the rules, you don’t stop – stopping isn’t an option – you can only work to build support to change the rules, and the most effective way to do this is by improving the legitimacy of the statutory basis for a permanent forum and by formally participating to your fullest extent to ensure accountability to enact policies which are closer to your wider interests.
And rather than complaining maybe you should encourage greater participation in the elections we hold for this purpose.
Another comparison is with the phone-hacking scandal which shows the Metropolitan Police in a very bad light – is anyone saying this means there should now be no police in London? No, the valuable contributions are all constructive ones which improve institutions and their relationship with the public rather than undermining or abandoning the principles of justice and equality under the law. If you find one rotten apple, it’s complete overkill to set fire to the whole cart.
The same goes for this party. It’s not about positioning, it’s about proving our principles by putting them into practice. And that means a relentless focus on purposeful policy.
Helen Flynn Posted 10th July 2011 at 5:22 pm
You know, I’ve been reading this over the last few days and have been curious, but then your final paragraph caught my eye so I thought I’d ask.
Every time I see this type of debate here there are the usual “we’re left/right/centre” type discussions from people I assume to be Party members (or at least people who voted for the Party). I can never recall seeing a discussion on “what the population believe us to be”, I couldn’t find anything on Google about this type of research so I’m wondering if it has been done. I only ask as it would seem to be logical to know what your starting point is before expending energy (and money) on any branding exercise.
chris_sh–the whole point of writing this blog is to create a starting point, as whenever I do ask anyone what they believe what we stand for (admittedly this is only anecdotal) they have not got a clue! Try it on a few unsuspecting members of the public….
Helen
thanks for replying – I must admit I forgot to check back and have only just remembered, one of the disadvantages of posts disappearing to the back pages at an alarming speed 😉
I can easily believe your anecdotal evidence as I’m not 100% certain what you stand for and I read lots of political blogs (mainly from the 3 largest parties – I’m a bit of a floating voter). To be honest, from the Lib Dem blogs I’ve read, I’m also not totally convinced that your own supporters know what you are either, there often seems to be contradictory messages being sent out (as you youself have noted).
“We have to point out what a different party we are in every way:
our democratically determined, detailed and well articulated policies (sensible and evidence-based vs. ideological and dogma-based).”
Isn’t this actually the problem? If you have a party that is simply branded as a centrist “broad church” then what is its starting point and to what extent does it eventually lose its original identity following democratic debate within and between this collection of centrists? The centrist brand is an impossibility because you are trying to combine multiple distinctly separate definitions of the freedom of the individual; trying to deny that Liberal Democracy is an ideology in its own right; trying to convince people that any of their own pre-existing genuinely held beliefs about their society and its direction has a place in the “broad church brand” party.