This is my first article for Lib Dem Voice – I’ve often been on the site, and finally decided I’d try and write for it!
It was a night of tragedies for the Liberal Democrats.
Sitting in my student accommodation, I was watching my first election being old enough to vote, with horror. Vince Cable, Charles Kennedy, Danny Alexander – bastions of British liberalism fell, one by one. As I’m sure we’re all aware, the party lost over 85% of its representation in parliament, having just eight seats midday on the 8th May. Nick Clegg’s resignation speech later that day really resonated with me – the flame of liberalism in this country was still flickering, but far dimmer than it was 24 hours earlier.
The party now stands on the precipice – without the right leadership, and policies, we risk being cast into the oblivion of obscurity along with the other minor parties. Elections within majoritarian systems such as the UK cannot be fought from the centre-ground – the First Past the Post voting system does not allow such parties to thrive, aside from being the recipient of protest votes.
This is why, we must, ironically do as we told the voters during the campaign – look left, look right. The party must shift one way or the other – doing nothing is out of the question. It must find an identity.
Looking left, and adopting a more Social Liberal position – not dissimilar to the days of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy, would likely be most popular amongst traditional party activists. The party has often identified with this particular cause, in contrast to some of the liberal parties found on the European mainland, such as the FDP. However, much has changed since the days before the coalition – the Left of British politics has become swarmed, with Labour, the Greens, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru all operating left-of-centre. Thus, looking left, all we see is traffic congestion (and if we’re in London and look really far, we can see Ken Livingstone and the congestion charge!)
Looking right, we see the Conservative Party – we know them rather well by now. Clearly not expecting a majority, they seem to have created a right-wing monstrosity of a manifesto, which has already seen them swing right on civil liberties, with Theresa May even going as far as wanting to censor television programmes. This leaves an open cleavage in British politics, one that would normally be Tory – the socially liberal, economically liberal voter. This would be a good opportunity to claim such voters with a message of social and economic liberalism, giving the party a distinctive identity that it sorely needs.
We should be the party of civil liberties, certainly – but also, of lower taxation for lower-and-middle earners, much in the vein of raising the personal tax allowance to £10,000 in the last parliament. Britain lacks a truly Liberal party in the complete sense of the word – looking left and right, there is a way forward. It is not necessarily found on the old political map of left-and-right, but rather, straight ahead. It’s all in the name – we must truly become the party of liberalism, both socially, and economically. For that particular road, is open and clear.
* Sam Skubala is a student in London, who otherwise lives in Hong Kong. He has recently joined the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Layla Moran on Gaza: "Starvation shouldn't be a weapon of war"
Peter Martin
Daniel Stylianou
Simon R
John Waller
Mick Taylor
48 Comments
Is this another mis-attributed article? I’m quite sure Caron has written several articles before!
A good article Caron which gets to the nub of the issue – left or right – or somekind of centre? My answer is all three. When I joined the Liberal-SDP Alliance – we were a big and broad coalition of all three. At the time although I agreed with much with the SDP I joined the Liberal Alliance side because I was broadly Liberal, was certainly radical and wanted the Alliance to work. We need to revive that Broad Alliance/Coalition within the movement to bridge left and right. We need the right mix of left/right policies from both wings to make a new and fresh offering. We must ditch those Tory policies that have crept in and are not ours – ie tuition fees , HS2, nuclear power etc whilst having a new mix of policies to attract lost centrist voters. By the way – one thing we got wrong was that horrible Road crossing PEB.
Yes, now fixed. Casualty of setting up pieces late at night. Sorry to Sam.
The Tories, UKIP and Labour are clearly authoritarian and conservative parties; and if we looked left none of them would be in view…. the open road is lined with both social housing and a less intrusive state…. the freedom that comes with a secure home that doesn’t eat up all your income and the right to live as you please within the limits of the harm principle.
We SHOULD have no problem with our positioning, just follow our liberal principle and adhere to the words of our preamble.
Why do you think the Tories stole the kudos for raising the tax allowance – whilst we were right that it helped the poor it also gave the rich an extra £10,000 in their pockets. thus whilst I think it was right to do so I do not look on it as being redistributive. Perhaps what we should do reintroduce the 10p tax rate for the first £15000 and tie it into the raising of the second tier as well as the rate for top rate tax back to 50p
We don’t need to go left or right, because the left-right argument is played out. Over. Done with. Blair proved that.
We need to go out and make the case for Liberalism – stand up to the authoritarianism of every other party in the UK (Yes, including the Greens) and just be Liberal as hard as we can.
We don’t need to be defined by others , in particular, Tories deserve their own mess.
We need to make a positive Liberal case, to campaign and to oppose the daft and dangerous ideas that are appearing.
All our Parliamebtarians really need to be campaigners as well. But much of the rebuilding and development will have to come from our wider membership
Takes me back a fair few years, but technology has opened up new methods.
We dont have to move anywhere but we do need to explain ourselves better & avoid Coalition.We are a centre-left Party & have been since we were established, more consistently than Labour or The Greens. We shouldnt overplay the divisions in the Party which are far narrower than those in our rivals.
Samuel is right to point out that since Liberal Democrats are economically liberal and socially liberal we should not be described as right wing or left wing but Liberal. We have five years to establish ourselves as neither right left or centre but Liberal.
This means setting out more clearly what it means to be Liberal Democrat than our party preamble, which could equally apply to the Conservative or Labour parties.
Paul Parker:
The question of coalition in the future needs to be confronted. Ryan Coetzee, did raise the question but too many wanted to attack the man rather than deeper issues. An important principle behind forming the coalition had, in my mind, to demonstrate that a coalition can be a stable and effective government. We did that but the loss of seats has been so catastrophic as to have overwhelmingly undermined the case. I had been against pulling out of the coalition, against changing, because of how destructive it would have been. I still think it would have been, but the fact is that not doing so was as destructive. and worse we can only seriously target about 30 seats next time.
Realistically, in 2020, whether there is or is not an overall majority and the odds are there will be, we are still most likely to be the fourth largest party and of no size in parliament to form a coalition.
In so far as where we position ourselves is concerned ‘centre left’ does not quite cut it. The Labour party are likely to tack to the right. Whilst their attacks from the left damaged us, they had little effect on the Tories. Centralisation and human rights will be important issues, so we will need to ensure that we have a distinctively Liberal agenda.
Sorry – Paul Barker – I did not spot the misspell of your name.
Samuel Skubala
We should be the party of civil liberties, certainly – but also, of lower taxation for lower-and-middle earners, much in the vein of raising the personal tax allowance to £10,000 in the last parliament.
So what cuts in government spending would you propose to allow for that? Or would you charge for NHS services? Or what? And how do you think that would go down?
“This means setting out more clearly what it means to be Liberal Democrat….”
Liberalism,.. definition :
A broken rudder that swings left or right at the mercy of the current.
Seriously,..There is no confusion in the voters mind, about exactly what it is to be a Liberal Democrat. The last five years were more than enough to paint a very bleak picture of the abstract, esoteric and bewildering nature of liberalism.
If liberalism has a real world political application, I have yet to see it articulated?
‘Clearly not expecting a majority, they seem to have created a right-wing monstrosity of a manifesto’
With a triple locked pension, a dubiously funded £8bn for the bottomless pit that is the NHS and a rail price freeze?
This isn’t the 1980s, the divides and battles of that era are over. What one makes of that is another matter of course.
John Dunn – that view is precisely what we need to overcome but there are clear real world applications. Opposition to ID cards, ending child detention, defending the HRA and supporting the extension of rights, in particular to minority groups (e.g. gay marriage during this parliament).
Alisdair McGregor – “…authoritarianism of every other party in the UK (Yes, including the Greens)…”. I can take a fairly educated guess at the policies you refer to with most major parties but what green policies do you think are authoritarian or illiberal? I certainly have issues with the green party but they have rarely centered on the fact that their policies are illiberal.
certainly not a ‘broken rudder’.. and if there is ‘no confusion in the voter’s mind’ then only one way it got there. That is our friends in our ‘balanced and fair’ media, with their own agenda that relies on the old simplistic left-right see-saw politics.. to which they seems to have successfully returned us?
We don’t need to tack anywhere, That is what other parties do in pursuit of power, power for its own sake(because without power you cannot appease your backers with policies to reward their investment) No, we ARE different. Our polices are based on our principles, decided upon democratically. We have to grow our movement, relentlessly, starting by building and strengthening our membership, a membership who truly belong to the party, who understand what the preamble is all about. Who will then draw in an ever growing membership who don’t define themselves in terms of the other parties and their slick, media driven hype.
Perhaps we need our own newspaper, TV and radio stations in order to broadcast the true Liberal Democrat message, but reacting to them and trying to please them, got us to where we are.
A social liberal
“whilst we were right that it helped the poor it also gave the rich an extra £10,000 in their pockets.”
Your figure is wrong, the “higher rate” threshold was lowered (to reduce the gain by “higher rate” payers, and the the saving for those unaffected by the “higher rate” it is 20% of the movement.
There is a good point about how the policy was explained, as it was done in very Tory terms.
Psi
A policy of income tax cuts presented as being implicitly “good” will always be explained in “very Tory terms” because it is a very Tory policy.
Unfortunately, during the disastrous Clegg years this delusion that cutting income tax is somehow good for society has diverted many Liberal Democrats from the sorts of tax policies which would actually help build a Liberal society.
It is obvious that the people applauding this low tax policy most loudly were the rich and powerful. There is a clue there.
Of course, there is a real problem with right/left definitions and relevance in the modern world. But the problem also exists in terms of defining the centre. What the Lib Dems can’t be in the future is simply a party based on stability and harmony driving down the middle of the road. I thought the party was all about radical change in our society in order to drive forward social justice and economic responsibility.
By the end of the election we were advocating “stability” and “unity” and placing ourselves as the modifiers of a Conservative led coalition. That was disastrous on a number of grounds which many others have described. There is a whole range of issues on which the Lib Dems need to take radical positions and to campaign in alliance with both other parliamentary forces and extra-parliamentary organisations and campaigns Just to list some of these issues – ending austerity politics, housing and regeneration, protection of civil liberties including opposition to the abolition of the Human Rights Act, the need for a full blown federal reform across the UK, opposing further welfare cuts and calling for the abolition of the bedroom tax, keeping us in the European Union etc etc.
We must ally with others and recover our campaigning edge both at a local level and nationally/internationally. In the next five years we need to build trust again as a radical force for change. The political and social objectives of campaigns are more important than the temporary success or failure of the party in various elections. What we don’t need in the next five years is “stability”!
Peter Kellner, President of YouGov, was on the panel at a seminar of political commentators, journalists and psephologists, about the general election results, which was shown on the Parliament Channel. He said that aabout 25% of the electorate reject the concept of left and right in politics (as do I).
He also said that it is possible to win a general election if a party is ahead on perceptions of economic competence, but behind in leadership, and it is possible to win a general election if ahead in leadership. but behind in perceptions of economic competence, but it is not possible to win a general election if behind on both. David Cameron was ahead of Ed miliband on both (although Ed Miliband’s rating s increased during the elction).
He made what may be an admission.
People who thought that David Cameron would make a better Prime Minister than Ed Miliband AND thought that the Tories were better than Labour at economic competence AND stated that they intended to vote Labour couod have been classified as likely to vote Tory. Mathematically that works.
He also debunked myths about the SNP, for which there may be more detailed research and the 1992 Sheffield rally, which did not cost Labour a general election.
Michael Steed was present in the live audience and may want to say more about Liberal Democrat eresults.
Please pardon the typing errors.
Simon Hebditch
By the end of the election we were advocating “stability” and “unity” and placing ourselves as the modifiers of a Conservative led coalition. That was disastrous on a number of grounds which many others have described.
The line “we’ll give a brain to a Labour government and a heart to a Conservative one” was NOT neutral. It was basically saying that the Conservatives are competent and that Labour means well but is incompetent. Well, given a choice of being governed by someone who is competent and someone who means well but is incompetent, which would you choose? It was a variation on a line sometimes (but wrongly) attributed to Winston Churchill, which can actually be found said by various people in various forms with the earliest attributable form coming from 19th century France – but it has ALWAYS been used by political right-wingers to defend right-wing policies and to suggest left-wing ones are immature.
I don’t believe the Conservatives are competent economically and their policies are good for the economy, so we should most definitely NOT have been saying this in our election campaign. Too much of their economic policy is about defending the idle rich and non-productive shifts of wealth rather than real productive wealth creation. Their attempt to get the phrase “wealth creator” to mean anyone who is rich shows that. Is someone who buys up any housing that is built because they are rich enough to bid more than those who need it, and then who lets it out to those thereby denied a house of their own a “wealth creator”? No, they are a “wealth absorber”, they are about taking from the productive. Some bounceback from the slump caused by the global economic situation in 2007-8 was bound to happen, and the fall in oil prices has also caused some growth, just as the big rise in oil prices wreaked havoc in the 1970s and again that was wrongly written up as all the fault of Labour as if the fact that other countries experienced similar was just coincidence. Far too much of the supposed recover we are seeing is based on pumping up asset prices and selling out control of our country to overseas global elite types. The supposed recovery has just not been felt in terms of real increase in income and security for most people. We SHOULD have been very critical of the Conservatives’ claims of economic competence, but instead our Leader and those surrounding him sang their praises.
So, in effect our party as it appeared from the image put from the top played the role of leaflet-deliver for the Conservatives in the general election, putting the case for voting Conservative and not Labour. People who didn’t agree with what we were saying there would never have voted for us, and people who were sort of convinced by it wold quite likely have gone straight to voting for the Conservatives, taking the point of view that if the LibDems think the Conservatives are offering good competent government that’s probably the best way to go, why take the risk of not having it by voting LibDem?
JohnTilley
“A policy of income tax cuts presented as being implicitly “good” will always be explained in “very Tory terms” because it is a very Tory policy.”
But this is not just about income tax cuts in general, it should have been about rebalancing the way tax falls. A cut at the bottom of the income scale is good for a number of reasons.
One criticism is that the rise in the threshold was partly (mostly?) off set by the losses in certain benefits. Firstly this was a choice in relation to benefits but even if you accept that choice it is better to receive the money from earning than benefits. The Benift system has errors (always has always will, lets not get in to how the current approach is better or worse than pervious administrations), the wages are less likely to see sudden withdrawals or sanctions as you get with benefits. Even if there were no sanction regime incomes are habit forming and sudden withdrawal due to benefit calculation errors have severe impacts at the low paid end.
In terms on transparency for the low paid, it is much clearer when planning to know your marginal loss rate if you are not paying tax on minimum wage (there is also the issue of NI and benefit withdrawal rates too, but that is later). It is very conceivable for someone earning £6k one year to be earning 12k the next and back again due to circumstances, people on higher incomes don’t have such large (% terms) fluctuations so have less need for the simplicity (though simplicity is better in general). This psychological impact makes people more able to opt to earn more where the opportunity presents itself making the labour market more dynamic.
There are still issues with the approach though:
The 40% rate should have been cut every time to keep all the benefits in the sub 40% population, where the economic benefits are greatest.
National Insurance should just be rolled in to Income Tax for simplicity and transparency.
The benefit withdrawal rate should be lower, as incentives matter at the top of the income scale they definitely matter at the bottom.
The ‘sales pitch’ for the policy when in government was ‘tax cut’ when it should have been:
1) Tax cut for the poorest
2) Less risk to the poorest from benefit error (good for people)
3) More dynamic labour force (good for business)
There are multiple benefits to certain policies just selling on one is a lot opportunity.
Matthew Huntbach
“The line “we’ll give a brain to a Labour government and a heart to a Conservative one” was NOT neutral. It was basically saying that the Conservatives are competent and that Labour means well but is incompetent. Well, given a choice of being governed by someone who is competent and someone who means well but is incompetent, which would you choose?”
It has been the position of ‘the left’ generally to concede the position of competence to the Tories. The tendency to attack Tories as ‘evil’ or ‘nasty’ often is picking up policies with bad outcomes and attributing intentions that many ‘swing voters’ don’t really believe. Many of the polices was badly though out, but with ‘good’ intentions. The attack of ‘nasty’ is countered by the Tories as ‘hard headed but necessary’ when the reality was they were really bad ideas.
This is now so engrained that many on ‘the left’ struggle to see other points of view or argue rationally about why Tory policies are intellectually bad as they behave like it is a moral crusade, and makes parties pursuing that line sound hyperbolic (how many times will Labour use the X days/weeks to save the NHS before they realise that the public regard it as hyperbole).
@John Tilley
“Unfortunately, during the disastrous Clegg years this delusion that cutting income tax is somehow good for society has diverted many Liberal Democrats from the sorts of tax policies which would actually help build a Liberal society.”
You don’t get the idea that allowing poor people more choice about how to spend their own money is a god thing do you? As labour used to say ‘the man in whitehall really does know best’
Top article, and an enviable position – it’s good to get in on a movement on the ground floor because the only way is up!
I personally would much prefer a party that ruthlessly optimised society for people and economy for business. I’m not terribly ideological, but I do think we have to look after the sick, the elederly, the young, etc. The best way to do that is to have a strong economy and a decent level of tax. To my mind the party has always had an anti-business streak and that hasn’t helped it.
You don’t get the idea that allowing poor people more choice about how to spend their own money is a god thing do you?
Well, as Mammon is not my god, the answer to your rhetorical question is “no”.
@a social liberal
You don’t appear to understand tax threshold s
The tax threshold was raised from 7k to 10k thereby saving the tax on 3k at 20% or £600.. That’s mot 10k extra for the rich.
Simon McGrath
You don’t get the idea that allowing poor people more choice about how to spend their own money is a god thing do you? As labour used to say ‘the man in whitehall really does know best’
If you have no money, you have no such choice.
If you have nowhere to live because council housing has been scrapped, your freedom has been greatly reduced from what it was in your parents’ era when that existed as a provision to anyone who could not afford market prices.
If you have a guarantee that health care of a particular standard will always be provided for you, you are more free than if you have to negotiate with a whole load of insurance salesmen and snake oil salesmen to get it.
Some of us actually don’t want to have to spend so much time playing wheeler-dealer, it is taking away our freedom when market fanatics insist we must. There are some things where is is nice to have a choice, others where all you want is an absolute guarantee of good service which you can trust even when you aren’t expert enough yourself to know what that might be.
Why on earth should middle earners pay less tax?
Tony Greaves
Just one of those things Tony, a bit like unelected Lords asking for more power.
good watch:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y9fgc/briefings-election-2015-lecture
Left and right are not the sole poles of politics. British politics had a lively existence without them until well into the 19th century. But these labels do usefully summarise attitudes to equality. Opposing progressive taxation and inheritance tax is classically right-wing. Standing up for people at the bottom of the pile is left-wing. When only a small minority of adults could vote, campaigning to widen the franchise was left-wing (and mainly Liberal until we chickened out over votes for women, a crucial failure to be Liberal enough). Tony Blair did not abolish these issues. He just adopted a sort of managerial centrism which seemed to work for a while. Of course, to say giving fighting poverty a high priority is left-wing tells us nothing about how poverty might best be fought, except that attacks on absolute poverty that do nothing to reduce relative poverty will not satisfy someone of the left. Left and right are about attitudes and priorities rather than programmes of government.
While many political commentators still lack the imagination to think beyond left and right, it’s pretty clear that the left-right measure tells us nothing about attitudes to diversity, civil liberties or the environment. Plenty of Labour voters are left-wing on tax and intolerant on social issues. What’s more, these issues outside the left-right measure are ones that particularly fire many Liberals.
We do need to be distinctively Liberal. In my opinion Liberalism is at heart left on right-left divides, but that doesn’t mean we adopt the state centralist solutions popular with Labour.
Where you’re absolutely right (not as opposed to left!) is that making a creed of sitting in the centre ground has failed and is devoid of principle or moral content. We do need to convince wavering people on many issues, but there is no need for us to work out where Labour and the Tories are and set out our position halfway.
Tony Greaves
“Why on earth should middle earners pay less tax?”
It is not just about what total amount is paid but on what basis, so more collected via “better” taxes like LVT and green taxes with a lower burden on income tax.
Simon Banks
“a creed of sitting in the centre ground has failed and is devoid of principle or moral content. We do need to convince wavering people on many issues, but there is no need for us to work out where Labour and the Tories are and set out our position halfway.”
That is the difference between a centre ground and a common ground approach.
Centre ground is looking at others and trying to sit between them.
Common ground is looking at what is core to your values and explaining to the public why they have those values in common. All parties have values the public have in common it is a matter of explaing why yours are the most important to the world we all face.
I really like this distinction between Centre and Common ground thanks Psi.
Oh, another article that suggests we need to be more economically right wing. FFS
Excellent description, Psi.
Common ground is exporting your values across the ideological and geographic divide. How you win in an adversarial political society.
Centre ground (for a third party) is equidistance and core vote consolidation. How you become a protest movement rather than political party.
Matthew Huntbach “The line “we’ll give a brain to a Labour government and a heart to a Conservative one” was NOT neutral.”
I agree entirely. I also believe that this was/is an intentional and core part of Lib Dem positioning and reflected a preference for putting a gloss of “niceness” on Tory economic policy rather than opposing it.
Ultimately I think this cost the party dear. I don’t think there is much space for a party which could be described as “tories for equal marriage” or “soft tories” not least because there appears to be better representation of women, LGBTs, BAMEs, and the working class at senior levels in the Conservative party than the Lib Dems. Even “tories for Europe” might be a redundant position for Lib Dems as the Conservative party contains and is influenced by pro-EU business interests.
Totally agree with this article. To me it didn’t come as a shock that the Lib Dem coalition collapsed but it was more of a surprise that it stayed intact for as long as it did. The Lib Dems coalition didn’t just go over to parties of the left it fractured in every direction to Labour, the Greens, the Tories and (yes shock horror) UKIP too. Lib Dem party activists have always been mostly on the left but many of said people failed to (and probably continue to) realise that a lot of their voters sat far to their right. I expect that the party will ‘look left’ but in doing so the leadership has to bare in mind that a lot of the seats in the former heartland of the West Country are inclined to the right, Tory (and even UKIP) friendly and very hostile to Labour.
Though I think where there is a biggest gap in the electoral market would be on the libertarian right. With the Tories becoming more authoritarian on issues like civil liberties a party espousing libertarian, free market, free movement of people/goods, pro Europe, anti welfare etc. would definitely have traction with a section of current Tory voters (particularly the ones in wealthy places like Surrey). Though there is no way the current party membership will allow this direction to be taken. A shift left will as this article says put the Lib Dems in a highly crowded field of parties (a this article states) competing for an electorate which will take a generation to forgive the party for the coalition.
Is it coincidence that arguments about future direction of the party which see us as competitors in an electoral market who should be governed by looking for free ideological space to occupy are almost always espoused by what for the sake of simplicity I’m going to call the Right of the party? I suppose it’s internally consistent. But if that’s the principle to follow, shouldn’t we be selling gym memberships or veg boxes or something, rather than bothering with that old-fashioned policy nonsense?
JJ 28th May ’15 – 7:59pm
“Though I think where there is a biggest gap in the electoral market would be on the libertarian right. …. …a party espousing libertarian, free market, free movement of people/goods, pro Europe, anti welfare etc. would definitely have traction with a section of current Tory voters (particularly the ones in wealthy places like Surrey). ”
And your evidence for saying this was revealed to you in a flash on the road to Damascus, was it?
A major shift of support from the Conservative Party to a rightwing Libertarian Party in Surrey?
Have you actually looked at the General Election results for season Surrey?
Your suggestion is almost as unreal as Joe Otten’s weird idea that Liberal Democrats lost seats in the South because we were “too like Labour”.
I suggest you simply read through any election results at any level in Surrey or the rest of the South of England for the last five years. Can you point to one single example of a rightwing Libertarian Party undercutting the Conservative vote?
This is a fantasy too far even for the wilder shores of LDV comment-land.
JJ
Though I think where there is a biggest gap in the electoral market would be on the libertarian right.
Throughout my lifetime there have been commentators saying that. It was a standard thing in the elite right-wing press. Whenever they felt they had to say something about the Liberal Democrats and before that the Liberals (which wasn’t very often, but maybe when the party was holding its conference they felt they couldn’t just play their normal line of ignoring it), this tended to be what they said, all we had to do was adopt extreme right-wing economics tempered with a little bit of civil liberties stuff, and bingo, we’d win. there were millions of people out there just waiting for that sort of party.
Well, in 2010 we became, in the eyes of most people, just that sort of party. And in 2015 you can see where it got us.
Tony Greaves’ comments are brief and to the point, but should check his Wikipedia entry.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/people/lord-greaves-of-pendle
http://www.pendle.gov.uk/info/20099/council_committees/199/council_and_committee_structure
http://www.libdems.org.uk/tony_greaves
John, Matthew – JJ is absolutely right. There is a huge gap in the electoral market on the libertarian right. And the reason is because no-one votes for it!
RIchard Underhill
What on earth is the point you’re trying to make?
@David Evans how do we know when we’ve never had a libertarian right party to vote for?