Nick Clegg’s resignation speech made me cry. It really hurt. As a result, I became part of the post-election #goldsurge. The speech made me realise that I needed to do more than just vote and join the party, in order to support the cause for liberalism.
But wait… support “liberalism”?! I’ve never uttered that word before.
Before that speech, I didn’t identify with the word “liberalism”. From a marketing perspective (my professional experience is in social media marketing and content branding), the key “Unique Serving Point” of the liberal democrats is our fight for liberalism. That’s our contribution to the issues our country and the world face. Yet, I never once heard the word “liberalism” used throughout the whole 2015 campaign.
Despite being a passionate liberal democrat supporter, I couldn’t explain to you, in simple terms, what liberalism really is. Nor, I believe, can most voters who may probably strongly agree with liberal ideals and values. In fact, many of my friends consider “liberals” to be “crazy lefties and hippies”… Which certainly doesn’t represent me. I don’t know about you?
To better define liberalism for myself, I have done hours of research on the different viewpoints. I passionately identify with those ideals and am certain that those views represent me. But not all potential supporters are politics nerds like me. They need a strong and relevant application to their lives, made clearly and succinctly.
It may seem crass to apply my private sector content/social marketing expertise to political campaigning, and I certainly don’t know the ins and outs of politics. But what I do know is that fighting for attention online is tough, and when you do capture the attention of someone doing a quick Google search or someone scanning a brand Facebook page, you don’t keep that attention for long. A brand has to be clear and instantly compelling.
Finally, the BBC argued that the success of the Conservatives’ campaign was down to what behaviour psychologists call “the Endowment Effect”. A well-known strategy in marketing, the theory understands that we are fundamentally hard-wired to protect what we might lose, rather than be optimistic for what we might gain. This is sometimes called the politics of fear, but fear is real in all of us. So…
What will we lose if we neglect the fight for liberalism? That’s something I’m impassioned to get behind that clear mission.
If I was advising a client in the private sector, I would say that now is the perfect time to start a content marketing campaign to engage a potential tribe of passionate people who already do, or who could believe in the cause of liberalism. And quite frankly, the contrast of 5 years on the back drop of a Conservative-led government is the perfect time to make our case for the importance of liberalism in our time.
So I’d be looking for those people who have clarity on the meaning of liberalism, and who have experience within politics, on how all this can apply to our cause moving forward.
* Kirsty Burton is a member of the Liberal Democrats
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have resignations led to a rethink?
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
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
50 Comments
Brilliant piece that expresses my own views perfectly. I joined the Liberal Democrats last week after, like yourself, reading lots and lots of political literature. Something I never thought I would do, but I have now become a bit of a political junky, devouring everything I can get my hands on. Now here’s the thing even after all my reading, my hours on you tube (nope it’s not just for funny cats) and time spent studying the Liberal Democrats website when I am asked why the Liberal Democrats I can easily recite that we are a party who stand for freedom, liberty and equality but I struggle to go beyond that to relate what this means to everyday life. In sales we are taught the difference between features and benefits, for me the Liberal Democrats are good at the features but fail to turn this into clear benefits. I personally feel the majority of people in the UK have a strong affinity with liberal values they just don’t know it. In my opinion this is down to the party not clearly presenting their vision. In the general election we all knew what the Tories stood for we all new what the SNP stood for, their message was clear, concise and consistent. I do hope that as a party we can get our message across so that when asked why Lib Dems I don’t need to stop and think.
“Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.” (Wikipedia.).
It pretty much says it for me.
I’ve been thinking about some of the points you raise for a long time, Kirsty – much have what you say makes sense to me. What follows below is a bit muddled, but hope there is some sense in there at least!
Liberalism has been something other parties have felt they could put on and take off whenever the chose, and I believe that voters have started to feel it would just always be there. That means that authentic Liberalism has, in the public sphere, become hazy and lost in the mix of politics. This has to change and, as you say, we need to show people what Liberal means.
To do so this I suggest that every policy we put forward is presented in such a way that it defines Liberalism. Liberal needs to be the word that goes through everything like Blackpool does rock. Why do we support more funding for mental health. Because it is the Liberal thing to do. Why do we support more money to children from poorer backgrounds? Because it is the Liberal thing to do. etc etc.
By doing so we could build that brand as well as an understanding of what we believe and why we believe it .
Many will resist thinking about parties in terms of branding, but it is something that has to go hand in hand with new policies. We need to demonstrate clearly to people that they themselves are indeed Liberal and, as a concequence, to indentify themselves and their values with the LibDems and not just expect Lab or the Cons to share that voice.
The Cameron government has quite effectively cast off their entirely false Liberal pretensions and, from those I have spoken to who voted Tory, and there is a real sense of buyer’s remorse. The SNP seem set to continue with a devisive mindset of you are either for the SNP, or against Scotland. Labour seem to be looking for answers, very few seem of them are a nod towards Liberalism. – as such, there is no better time for us to put forward a strong Liberal message to convince people that if they want Liberalism, they have to vote LibDem.
Kirsty Burton,
Thank you for your interesting article and welcome to the Liberal Democrats.
I am one of those “crazy lefties” that your friends warned you about. I was slightly too young to be a hippy and the bus from y hue never went as far as San Francisco but I have always thought that as slogans go, “peace and love” was more attractive than “war and hate” amd certainly more in line with Liberalism.
If you want a quick guide to the subject of the question in your heading I recommend -‘An intelligent person’s guide to Liberalism’ by Conrad Russell to be read alongside the Preable to the Liberal Democrat Constitution.
Or his very short pamphlet ‘THE LIBERAL CAUSE – The three-century-long tradition of the Liberal Democrats’.
Some voters have a better idea of what Liberalism is than some of our ex-MPs. Those are the voters that we need to win back to the party. They voted for us in their millions as recently as 2005 when we were universally recognised by voters as being a party of the left.
Well said Kirsty, an excellent article.
Is it too pathetic to say I know Im a Liberal because I hate collectivism as demonstrated by the Labour Party,SNP,UKIP and the Conservative right.
But Kirsty is right if you want to spread the message of Liberalism you have to make it understandable and acceptable. When I hear people talking left and right within the party, I worry…commonsense and decency applied to all issues is where we should start. When a Council Leader my colleagues and I used a simplistic test to all issues.”Does it enhance the quality of life of my fellow human beings if not there has to be a significant reason to endorse it.
This should be compulsory reading for both leadership candidates, as it gets us away from Focus group led policy and back to core beliefs.
When it was suggested recently that future policy, in the run up to the Scottish elections next year, should go through the process Kirsty outlined, the response was sadly not enthusiastic.
Unless we embrace our core beliefs and turn them into easily digestible messages, we will not capture the support of the many out there who are Liberals – but just don’t know it….yet.
One of my friends – who sometimes votes Lib Dem or Green and in the past Labour……. is really a Liberal when we discuss his views and values. He refuses to admit it though ….as he sees him self as a Socialist ,,,,,,,, I think he thinks it is more ‘street cred ‘!!
@ bob sayer “Is it too pathetic to say I know Im a Liberal because I hate collectivism as demonstrated by the Labour Party,SNP,UKIP and the Conservative right.”
Not at all. Indeed it’s the sort of thing we should have been saying all along. Our greatest failing in the 2015 campaign was to fail to set out who we actually were, what set us apart. It was too managerial by far “we’ll cut less than them and borrow less than the others” – not a campaign line to inspire anyone.
The meaning of liberalism summed up into few words by some well-known liberal thinkers:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” – John Stuart Mill
“Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power vested in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, when the rule prescribes not, and not to be subject to the inconstant, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.” – John Locke
“No one has a right to compel me to be happy in the peculiar way in which he may think of the well-being of other men; but everyone is entitled to seek his own happiness in the way that seems to him best, if it does not infringe the liberty of others in striving after a similar end for themselves when their Liberty is capable of consisting with the Right of Liberty in all others according to possible universal laws.” – Immanuel Kant
“the success of the Conservatives’ campaign was down to what behaviour psychologists call “the Endowment Effect”. A well-known strategy in marketing, the theory understands that we are fundamentally hard-wired to protect what we might lose, rather than be optimistic for what we might gain.”
Absolutely. What was concerning was the failure of the LibDems to be associated with the success and stability of the Coalition, despite the hard work and sacrifice this took out of us. The failure was IMO mostly down to a failure to explain, early on in the Coalition and throughout, who we were and why we agreed to a coalition with the Tories in the first place. A lot of people have spoken about “betrayal” in relation to us either going into coalition or voting for coalition policies. Paradoxically, it’s partly because we never explained what we had in COMMON with the Tories. If the answer to this was nothing – then why did we ever agree to coalition with a party we had nothing in common with? I say this as someone who supported the coalition and our role in it – but we were always reluctant to ever attack Labour for their unwillingness to tackle the deficit or their hypocrisy in opposing every cut (having themselves promised to cut by a similar amount). Our attacks on Labour were managerial “we’re better at running the economy than them”, never heartfelt. The left were thus left with the moral highground unchallenged. Because we weren’t willing to associate ourselves readily with the pain, voters didn’t associated us with the gain that resulted.
Craig Norrison,
Thanks for your comment. I completely agree with all of it. I have also become a bit of a politics junkie, and like you, I have spent a lot of time on Youtube 🙂
You make a really good point about identifying the difference between features and benefits, I think that the Lib Dems have a lot to learn from sales and marketing in the private sector, however crass and belittling it may feel. The reality is that we live in the age of Twitter… And it worries me a little that the party seems to raise themselves higher than other parties in such a way that they refuse to become “marketing machines”- I quote a speech Tim Ferron made at a rally in 2010:. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyjpSAu7iG0
It seems that it comes down to applying what liberalism means, as you said, in everyday life. I wonder if someone in the party has clarity on that…
Bob Browing,
Thanks for your comment! I agree that that Wikipedia quote states what liberalism is. But it is my opinion that this type of academic and theoretical definition doesn’t help the party to convey its message to potential supporters. It isn’t succinct and poignant, and it doesn’t state how liberalism, or lack thereof, affects everyday people in their everyday lives. Unfortunately, many people care first about their own lives and their immediate families. When faced with immediate danger, such as hunger, insecurity or financial risk, it’s hard to think of the bigger picture. It is my opinion that liberalism has a place there. We just need to show them why and how.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion. 🙂
*Bob Browning. So sorry that I misspelled your name.
Julian Tisi
“we were always reluctant to ever attack Labour for their unwillingness to tackle the deficit or their hypocrisy in opposing every cut”
Where on earth were you for the last five years? I seem to recall relentless attacks on Labour. Some of us felt that they didn’t help in maintaining the party’s separate identity and served to reinforce the idea that the worst possibility was another Labour government (which to most people means, “Vote Tory”). But perhaps you think it just didn’t go far enough?
Kirsty writes :
” Unfortunately,.. many people care first about their own lives and their immediate families. When faced with immediate danger, such as hunger, insecurity or financial risk, it’s hard to think of the bigger picture.”
So people (selfishly), thinking about their families, and worrying about their insecurity is the exact opposite of liberalism?
Thanks for clearing up the confusion of what liberalism is. Liberalism, it seems ten, is a financially secure, middle class state of mind, that can afford to ponder on the higher ideals of life. At least I can now see why liberalism is losing traction with the voter?
Malcolm Todd 18th May ’15 – 3:40pm….Julian Tisi…………..“we were always reluctant to ever attack Labour for their unwillingness to tackle the deficit or their hypocrisy in opposing every cut”…………….Where on earth were you for the last five years? I seem to recall relentless attacks on Labour. Some of us felt that they didn’t help in maintaining the party’s separate identity and served to reinforce the idea that the worst possibility was another Labour government (which to most people means, “Vote Tory”). But perhaps you think it just didn’t go far enough?…….
Very true….A few weeks before the election there were four or five separate threads criticising Labour’s competence over ‘tuition fees’….
I believe that our leadership (and LDV) believed that the Tories would run a campaign based on their record of the last 5 years and we could ‘ride in on their coat tails’ by pointing out our part in any success and our ‘tempering’ of any excesses….
Instead the Tories mounted an almost entirely ‘visceral’ campaign….They made almost no reference to the past and refused to cost any of their future plans….We were left with nothing to ‘hang our coats on’….
Short answer: no
Long answer: like too much else, our modern discourse is corrupted by American usage. “Left-Liberal” being a case in point. I even see it used by commentators who should not better.
However, we need to couch Liberalism in terms that enables fear at its loss to be engendered. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
To me, freedom of expression coupled with a belief in reasoned discussion and persuasion are crucial to liberalism.
If I had to differentiate liberalism from, say conservatism or socialism this is how I would put it:
– conservatives believe that might is right, whereas liberals believe in protecting the rights of the minority against an overbearing majority.
– socialists believe that since their ideology is correct it is above scrutiny, whereas liberals believe that having to defend one’s arguments makes them stronger.
Truth is, of course, that there are many liberals in both conservative and labour parties. Their views are often closer to liberalism, but a range of factors from first past the post to the influence of region and family drive them into conservative or labour camps.
Kirsty, good to read your piece and to have yet another ‘enthusiast’ in the Party. I am being sincere just in case the next para leaves you in some doubt about that.
Did you know that we had a very experienced brand and media manager in Nick Clegg’s team? Here is news of his appointment http://www.prweek.com/article/1328106/lib-dems-hire-quillers-ruwan-kodikara-comms-shake-up
I think he may also have been someone key in the Kingston Lib Dems.
Three definitions in quotes:
‘A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future.’ (Leonard Bernstein)
‘I am for peace, retrenchment and reform, the watchword of the great Liberal Party thirty years ago.’ (John Bright)
‘Few organisations can debate for three days whether to stage a debate, hold a debate, have a vote and then proceed to have a debate about what they have debated. But that is why the Liberal Democrats hold a special place in the British constitution.’ (Patrick Wintour)
All – and many, many more – from the ‘Dictionary of Liberal Quotations’, available through the Liberal Democrat History Group website here: http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/product/dictionary-of-liberal-quotations/
I would argue that the vast majority of those who want to make the world a better place would be comfortable with being described by the common definitions for ‘liberal’. However, the problem is that most [and probably the same] people would similarly describe themselves as ‘decent people’. What matters is not what you say you are – but what you do – or what you are trying to achieve.
In terms of a political party – this is defined by its policies. These will not be the same all of the time – but those that are most needed at any particular point in time.
I had taken this to be the meaning of Jo Grimmond’s ‘Marching towards the sound of gunfire’ – tackling the issues of the day that are causing the most strife.
John Dunn,
I think you are being a going a bit over the top there in paraphasing Kirsty by saying ….Liberalism, it seems then, is a financially secure, middle class state of mind, that can afford to ponder on the higher ideals of life. At least I can now see why liberalism is losing traction with the voter?
It was the 19th century pamphleteer William Cobbett – in recognising that unrest among the poor was caused by unemployment and hunger and not, as the government had alleged, by a desire to overthrow English society – who said ” I defy you to agitate any fellow with a full stomach.”
Thank you for a very interesting post which has also stimulated a valuable thread of discussion. My background was one of involvement in socialist politics and subsequently becoming disengaged form this. In addition to the disengagement I also became disillusioned by the illiberal attitude of the new left. Reading around the themes of freedom and liberty has revealed a huge literature of knowledge and experience which, I am sad to say, was new to me. I mention this as up until very recently I had never considered “The Liberals” or “Lib Dems” as I was not fully aware of how important liberal principals were to me and did not see these principals as the markers of the party. I therefore agree with the thrust of the arguments here that the main task facing you is to make the meaning of liberalism very clear and distinct as this will be the light that guides people home.
From Kirsty’s link to the BBC on Cameron’s fear-based campaign:
“It might have made for a thin, negative and corrosive campaign. But it worked a treat. The most successful political party in the democratic world has proved its mettle, again.”
Until we can combat those rogues, we’re nowhere. Let’s begin by never working with them again!
Thanks for this article Kirsty. You and Craig Morrison both express your frustration about the difficulty of getting beyond basic slogans and explaining in simple terms what liberalism is about. Welcome to the club! That’s what I call ‘narrative’ and it’s something the Lib Dems haven’t been able to do since the party was formed. I believe an effective narrative would be by far the best recruiting sergeant the party could hope to have not to mention the best political campaigner! What we have had instead is endless ‘manoeuvres’ – trying to wring tactical advantage out of every situation, e.g. exploiting a second place position to squeeze third and forth place candidates. The leadership have always been unwilling or incapable of addressing the lack of narrative so maybe, just maybe, losing badly will turn out to be the best thing that ever happened if it galvanises change and if we get a better leader. I live in hope!
For what it’s worth I think there are limits to what can be done with marketing. We need a better product as well, we need to understand why we want to do each particular thing and how it fits into the bigger picture. From that it flows very naturally that it’s easy to see which compromises are tolerable and which should be resisted at all costs. At present the party can’t do that which is partly why it did so badly out of the Coalition.
So where to start? For me the answer has to be with economics which is the subject that aims to explain how we relate to each other and to the material and financial resources available to us. But the important thing to understand is that economics is to politics as theology is to religion. It much more complicated that physics; there are few testable answers so mostly people believe whatever is to their own advantage. Look at things through that lens and suddenly the distinctions are starkly highlighted. For instance Conservatives understand perfectly well that markets don’t work by supply and demand balancing at a point mediated by price as per Econ 101 textbooks but by the exercise of crude power. Their sponsors by and large have power and wealth so of course they prefer to spin fables extoling the idea that we should leave everything to markets because mere humans would get it wrong. The result is to powerfully tilt the playing field in their direction. We should expose the fable and tell it like it is. We should of course use markets but ones designed to deliver fairness and to oppose monopoly and oligopoly. That would be a good product to sell.
Sorry for going over the top Joe.
And that William Cobbett was truly one smart guy for recognising that an empty belly, might not be conducive to social cohesion. Who would have thought it?
But just to be clear on liberalism,.. if you are a person worried about your family’s future and have a precarious financial,.. food,.. and heating situation,.. what has liberalism got to offer them *practically !* that would get them motivated to put a pencil [X], alongside the Liberal Democrat candidate ?
Truth is,..I’ve yet to see any *worldly useful* explanation of liberalism. Everything I’ve read so far about liberalism, sounds more like one of those esoteric Eastern religions, that you simply cannot expect to transpire within the 3 dimensions of our real world, but must ponder quietly whilst breathing low, until enlightenment engulfs your very being.?
Have I missed the point? Is Liberalism so esoteric a concept, that its more akin to the teachings of Gurdjieff, and whose practical benefits simply cannot be explained by mere words alone?
Kirsty, you make a good point about voters being confused by liberalism and the fact it has different viewpoints. I like both of our leadership candidates and our last leader, but I do a little cringe when I hear the candidates on television talking about promoting liberalism. This is OK for conference speeches and maybe the odd mention, but the word “liberalism” shouldn’t be at the forefront of liberal revival; especially not when communicating to non-political viewers at home.
I think we need to talk in everyday language more. We should talk about being pro business, pro worker, or even if you are pro co-operatives then talk about that, but talking about “liberalism” should be left I feel to talks targeted at political activists, rather than everyday viewers at home.
Some amazing and interesting discussions here.
@JohnDunn: Thanks for your comment. I’m not calling people selfish for voting on immediate issues relevant to them. They are right in whatever they think, as it is not for me to judge what is right or wrong. Democracy rightly dictates that what voters decide is indeed what is right, and so the result is just.
However, I personally believe that there are also “selfish” reasons as you say, to vote for liberalism, just as there are urgent reasons to vote for other parties. There are immediate issues that affect normal everyday people (hey, I’d consider myself one). It’s just that the Lib Dems have not made that clear. The other parties successfully communicate their beliefs and values in ways that are clearly and urgently applicable to everyday life. The liberal democrats did not, in my very humble opinion (these are just opinions, I am no expert).
@JohnDunn I’ve just spotted your second comment. No, actually, I think you are exactly spot on IMHO… We need to translate our language when talking about liberalism from abstract, wishy-washy and idealistic concepts to providing solutions to the everyday problems and threats of people of all types. Do you think that there can be practicalities in liberalism, or do you think it can’t be applied practically?
John Dunn I’ve just spotted your second comment. No, actually, I think you are exactly spot on IMHO… We need to translate our language when talking about liberalism from abstract, wishy-washy and idealistic concepts to providing solutions to the everyday problems and threats of people of all types. Do you think that there can be practicalities in liberalism, or do you think it can’t be applied practically?
@John Dunn I saw Nick Clegg at his leadership hustings in 2007 and one of the things he said that really resonated was how powerless people can be when faced with “the system”; in other words, the forces of private and public inertia that are inflexible to them and their particular needs.
Liberalism is nothing if not on the side of those people. We need a simple yet powerful way to put that point across.
Great article Kirsty and agree Eddie. I have not felt that comfortable with the term liberalism being used so much in the post-election period as I don’t think it’s a concept that particularly speaks to people – me included. We certainly need to find new ways of explaining what Lib Dems are about.
For me the most important bit of the preamble to our constitution was this:
“We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives” and this: “We believe that people should be involved in running their communities. We are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable level and a fair voting system for all elections. We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes. We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people”.
Now to me this is all about empowering people. It is why I am a passionate advocate of the Single Transferable Vote: it gives the power to the electorate, not the party hierarchy who determine the order of a list. And I think communities have the right to decide what happens in their local area, even if that sometimes leaves us open to the charge of inconsistency. Of course with a rising population we need many new houses in Britain, but if a local community mobilises to successfully fight off a housing development, I do not see that as a problem. In that process the community is strengthened, and so is the cause of Liberalism. People have taken control of their lives and that is good.. And meanwhile I can point to a dozen housing developments left half finished for years, and a dozen brownfield sites that should be developed. Similarly, I am in favour of renewable energy but there are many many places where we should not build a wind farm.
And I do have faith in people when confronted with the needs of others. People will help each other if they are told the truth, but so often they are not… I hate the relentless demonising of “welfare scroungers” “immigrants” “gypsies” and recently “Scottish Nationalists”
So I think the job of politicians is to lead, but not to control, while protecting the weak… And this has been a distinctive mark of Liberalism over the years, setting it apart from Conservatism, which does not protect the weak, and Socialism, which seeks to control
Unfortunately, this piece only encapsulates the immense challenge for the libdems to own a unique identity in British politics. The Tories may have hijacked liberalism and rebranded it as a kind of financial liberalism, with greater freedoms to use our pensions as we wish for example. What kind of liberalism do we foster that other parties do not?Knowing and expressing this is surely our first challenge.
I think it’s important to know where we have come from, to know where we are going, Liberalism has been around for a long time and many of its basic principles have remained the same. Yes things have changed from era to era in terms of emphasis but essentially the principles that David Lloyd George espoused are the same principles most of us have today. Liberalism is about freedom, liberty, equality of opportunity, defending the basic principles of our justice system, the celebration of variety, non conformity, believing everyone should be allowed to live their life the way they want to so long as it doesn’t affect another’s liberty. It’s not moralistic, it doesn’t seek to lecture and its also plural too – respecting others and different points of view in a democracy. Yes we need to find a way to convey all this in a modern context but the principles are pretty simple and not that hard to understand. We just need to explain things more. All of these principles are today in one way or another under threat as the country seems to embrace an authoritarian agenda.
Also, in other coutries the word Liberal in much more instinctive than it is here. Look to Canada and Justin Trudeau. There the Liberals who were reduced to a rump are about to make a big comeback in the autumn if the pundits are to be believed. But watching events in Canada you straight away get that Canadians understand liberalism ….it’s part of their core as people. Britain doesn’t quite have that passion for liberalism (prefer to boss or be bossed about..lol) but i believe many people are liberals, they just don’t it. We have to sell the brand because it’s relevant now more than ever.
Kirsty Burton
Thanks for the video link. You said “I think that the Lib Dems have a lot to learn from sales and marketing in the private sector, however crass and belittling it may feel.” and I looked at the video where Tim Farron said the Lib Dems are the “last political party up against soulless marketing machines”. Now I pose a question, is it crass and belittling for political parties to be involved in marketing?
In my answer to this I want to again quote Tim Farron “David steel once told the Liberal assembly I am absolutely not interested in power without principle but I am only slightly interested in principle without power” and I think this highlights something really interesting. The “marketing machines” of the Tories, Labour and in my view SNP are based around an unprincipled form of politics. What I mean by this is the policies adopted by these parties is based around keeping them in power and not based on values. I feel that some would feel that this is crass and belittling because the marketing adopted is then that of fear, and the only reason to use fear is to divide the public and conquering them.
The Liberal democrats are different. The policies come from the members and are shaped by real people like you and me. Straight away this means two things, firstly policies are based on values and principles as I would think the majority of members are not interested in power but rather in making change. Secondly any marketing by the Lib Dems will be value driven and not fear driven. So in my view it is not so much marketing in itself that is crass or belittling, given that marketing is simply a tool for making your voice heard, but the way in which marketing is used and the drivers behind it.
I would also like to go to comments made by GF and I agree with your comments “For what it’s worth I think there are limits to what can be done with marketing. We need a better product as well, we need to understand why we want to do each particular thing and how it fits into the bigger picture”. I really sat and thought about your point. To me there is something missing from the constitution and I believe that to be a clear mission and vision. We have lots of values, it could be argued too many but to my knowledge there is no clear mission and vision. The constitution while bringing together lots of values, values that I totally agree with, doesn’t give an overall clear mission of what the Liberal Democrats want to achieve or the vision of how the world should be from a liberal point of view. For those of you who would argue that there is a mission and vision I would state that if there was a clear mission and vision this topic would be nil and void and this article titled “Opinion: Do voters really know what Liberalism is?” firstly wouldn’t have been needed and secondly wouldn’t have engaged so many people.
I believe that key to the survival of a political party is its ability to engage both the heads and the hearts of the public and in my view that starts with being clear about who you are and what you stand for. A mission statement engages peoples minds which while a vision engages the heart.
I do agree with GF that strong economic policies are of utmost importance, but in my opinion the work starts with having a clear Mission & vision that the party members and the public can get behind. Once you can effectively communicate to the wider public in a way that they can understand what you stand for you then need to address peoples basic needs which all fall under Economics – Employment , Finance, the markets etc.
We are now in a world of political fear, fear or Westminster by the SNP, fear of the SNP by the Conservatives, fear of Europe by UKIP and the only people who benefit from all this fear are the leading political parties themselves who retain and strengthen their power, as we have just seen in the general election. The SNP pretty much wiping every other party out of Scotland does not bode well for the Scottish Election in 2016 and we need to communicate to the public in a way that they can relate to before we are faced with a mass of SNP MSPs in Holyrood.
I am sure we all agree that now, more than ever, a strong liberal voice is needed and there are definitive lessons that can be taken from the business world on how best to do this, as crass as this may seem, if we don’t embrace the world of marketing, PR and sales then soon enough we might find ourselves in a world where our voice has been wiped out and the politics of fear wins.
Thank you for taking the time to write your excellent article. It was a real pleasure to read something brief yet thought provoking. Speaking as one of the “crazy lefties” (though I prefer the term Radical Liberal), I would suggest that you do some asking around about why “Liberalism” was barely, if ever, mentioned in our national campaign. I have my theories but an article from a new member who is, I think, what Michael Meadowcroft would call an “instinctive Liberal”, could be well worth the effort and the read.
@ Kirsty Burton
Thanks for a considered reply.
“Do you think that there can be practicalities in liberalism, or do you think it can’t be applied practically?”
Frankly NO. My view is that you should drop liberalism as a campaigning tool, because,.. whilst liberalism is a ‘broad sense of purpose’, and a reason for your active LD membership, it needs a physical presence in people’s lives to make it real.
Example :
Everyone has a broad sense of what The Salvation Army is,.. but it is the soup kitchens and beds they provide to the destitute that is the true beacon of their worth. You need to put your liberalism message into a framed picture on your wall to energise yourself, but,… where is the hot bowl of soup?
At the council level, you simple cannot get a better group of individuals than Liberal Democrats, when it comes to sorting out local practical issues. They are trustworthy, efficient and transparent. (They are your ‘soup’ providers !) But as you try to scale up to the National level, it becomes more evangelical and less practical. You need to work out why that is?
I have been a Labour supporter most of my life with an occasion ‘dabble’ of Liberal Democrat. My move to (Red) Ukipism, is not because I have developed a fascist taste for eating babies, but a realisation that there has been an ‘impossible to achieve’, left wing over-arch in both Labour and Lib Dem, over several decades. It’s almost as if some (head in the cloud), left wing politicians want to,.. Save *every* stranded kitten up every tree in the world (!). It cannot be done ! .. and you need to get real about that fact.
Red Ukipism, is a statement (for me), which acknowledges that there is an unending number of *stranded kittens* in the world, but we should use our (increasingly limited resources), to *saving kittens here in the British Isles*.
Am I selfish Red-Kipper,.. or am I being practical in my desire to better triage resources, as far as they can realistically be spread.?
When I was a teacher, I was an active member of a union, but I found myself often speaking at branch meetings about strike calls. I took the view that just because my union voted by a majority for strike action, I was not compelled to comply if I felt such action was not the right way forward. That is an example of what I mean by Liberalism. Is it not in our preamble to our constitution that no one should be oppressed by conformity ?
That is just one example of why I am not a member of the Labour party.
I also believe strongly in power and resources for local communities, including local government. That is one reason why I am not in the Conservative party. Local communities (i.e. the third sector) and local government need resources because that is where we can get alongside people in their need, so that they are helped to develop and care for themselves, not forced to do so by the circumstances and lack of resources. That for me is another meaning of Liberalism that ensures no one is oppressed by poverty and ignorance.
Great article expresses my thoughts and wishes. I need to understand what I stand for as a liberal and how my life choices can be more liberal. Please party reach out as guided.
What will we lose if we fail to back Liberalism? Our freedoms.
Many thanks for this post, Kirsty. It is possible to put over some quite basic Liberal messages simply: helping people and communities gain control over their own lives, for example; fighting unfair advantage and standing up for people unfairly treated; doing our bit for peace and the environment.
I’m a bit surprised your friends still think we’re mad lefties. Is it possible most of your friends are well to the right of the average Brit? To many people nowadays we’re toned-down Tories.
Dear Kirsty
Welcome!
As some have mentioned, the “Preamble” to the LD constitution (see website) to me is the liberal message.
I find it’s a must when I get discouraged and wonder whether just to move to Scotland.
Clear, inspiring, essential.
Welcome, Kirsty,
I hope you noticed that Jennie gave folk a very short reading list, with reasons’
I enjoyed her reason foor including the Liberator Songbook. It is the Party laughing at most things. And I have recently seen a lovely LDV piece by Sheila Ritchie.which gives you two versions of the Preamble. I prefer the older one, but am stuck with the more modern one. One can test ideas against these and work out most things from first principles from them.
Just talk to lots of us
And do enjoy your membership.
I think the the Lib Dems and the Labour Party could learn a lot about conveying its message by looking at Cameron’s speech yesterday about the NHS and by Osborne’s vision of a Northern Powerhouse. Now I really dislike both men but they had me enthused in a way that the other parties have not for a very long time. Cameron’s message was simple but it’s impact went deep. Who can argue with the simple message that the NHS should be open when we need it, because illness does not wait for Monday morning. By painting a picture which so many of us recognise and then painting his vision of a better way forward, in a scenario which we can all relate to, he has reclaimed the NHS. I would never ever vote Tory and the fact that Labour and the Lib Dems have failed to articulate a vision which can enthuse us all, is deeply frustrating.
Margaret,
So good to see someone else stress the importance of that preamble to our constitution. It has not been given enough attention in recent years and of course we have to think carefully how it translates into values and into the priorities and policies for our present national circumstances.
If we are to gain and maintain more support among the population we also need to clearly express the connections between those basic beliefs and our policies and priorities. For example, no one would disagree that poverty is not good, but how you go about helping people out of poverty is the subject of much disagreement. The Conservative view would be ‘pull your socks up and work’; the Labour view is less clear but probably a mix of central state hand-outs, rules and ‘ join a union if you work’. Our view is at the moment also not too clear.
I worried that our recent leadership concentrated on providing ‘opportunity’; this forgets that many do not know how to take advantage of opportunities and often have personal and social circumstances that make it almost impossible for them to change their lives themselves. That is why I am looking to more localised resources (money and people) that can work alongside them, rather than the Labour approach of complicated state hand-outs and rules.
Oh Phyllis,
Cameron and Osborne are ALL presentation no substance. We already have 24/7 GP cover – the GP out-of-hours service. As with all practices, some of these doctors are better than others and some make bad mistakes.
However it can be really helpful to get an alternative opinion to your own GPs. My mother-in-law, now departed, had a dreadful, awful lot of GPs at her surgery. I was always relieved when she timed a health crisis outside office hours as we had a chance of getting somebody decent for a change!
An out-of-hours GP saved my husband’s mobility by referring him urgently at a weekend to Atkinson Morley’s. His own GPs would not have. So I have many reasons to be grateful for the out of hours, walk-in centres and other services set up under (gasp!) Tony Blair.
Margaret Gray, yes I agree absolutely with you about style over substance but my point was that simple direct messages anchored to people’s experiences resonate with ordinary people (ie not politics junkies like us). Your post about your experience of the out of hours service and how it helped your family is a very good example.
I hope that in the time between now and the EU Referendum the Lib Dems can articulate a vision for the UK in Europe. It is not enough to say ‘we believe in a reformed EU’. You must paint a picture of how staying in the EU will benefit individuals in their day to day lives, which most people can be inspired by and feel energised by. For too long people have been fed a negative view of Brissels interfering in their day to day lives by for instancing banning misshapen bananas(!) by the right-wing media. People need to be inspired to vote for your cause.