On Monday night, four friends and I (all new members) hosted #libdempint, an informal event for fellow newbies in London. The original plan was to meet up together and share a drink or two. We thought we might get a couple of random strangers come along and make pleasant but slightly awkward political conversation with us. Instead, we had 100 fellow newcomers attend, three official speakers (Rob Blackie, Elaine Bagshaw and Tom Brake MP), and a couple of pretty interesting gatecrashers – a couple of lovely fellows called Tim Farron and Nick Clegg.
Needless to say, we hadn’t really expected any of this. Interest in what we’d set up has been phenomenal – national media have been interested but more importantly our follow up event next week is already fully booked, and so we’re putting on a third in the coming weeks.
All of this speaks to the very real sense of (perhaps renewed) energy that abounds in the party at the moment, as thousands of new members continue to sign up.
But among the hundreds of email conversations the five of us have had with some of these newbies over the last 10 days, as well as the face-to-face discussions we all had on Monday night, something else has become clear to us: a common thread woven through the motives of many of these people signing up to support the Liberal Democrat party.
That thread is a palpable determination to not let the last five years be brushed under the carpet. Many of the people I spoke to on Monday night expressed this with no little passion. There seems to be both a fear that the party may react by recoiling from its time in government, and a consensus that to do so would not only be a waste, it would send a signal that the party believes it made a mistake going into coalition. We didn’t. We made a difference. We must always – always – be proud of that.
Here are three lines of thinking that we’ve detected from our incipient – but, at 200 and counting, statistically representative – community of new members.
1) Don’t be pulled back to the past by those who disagreed with the coalition. There is pride and moral assuredness is what we did; and excitement about the future.
2) Avoid and rebut any external attempts to impose an outdated and artificially binary ‘left/right’ framework onto the party and its politics. This party is about two simple values that transcend such tribal trivialities: fairness, and freedom. Both of those words must surely have currency on the long canvassing road back to influence.
3) Bring these values to life in the important, imminent fights over Europe, data privacy and security. On the first of these, in particular, there is a definite sense that only the Liberal Democrats are going to make a values-based case, free from politicking, for committing to Europe. For the largely younger new membership, I think ‘Europe’ informs individual identity to a huge degree. Who we are, how we see ourselves, is at stake. We want the party to take that fight to the government, and to UKIP.
Of course, we are but an assortment of new, fledgling members, without the stripes (and battle scars!) of longer standing activists. But, that said, one fact really struck all of us as we surveyed the bustling, buzzing room on Monday night. The new members who have joined since the election now comprise one fifth of the party’s entire membership.
If the party was a working week, we are Monday: new, fresh, full of energy and inspiration. And if this first event is anything to go by, those 13,000+ new members is going to want to make themselves heard.
* Stuart Lambert is a new member
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
High Fell by-election leaflet watch 3: the proof is in the reading
Have resignations led to a rethink?
paul barker
Laurence Mann
Stefano Brunesci
Robert Doyle
Peter Martin
36 Comments
“This party is about two simple values that transcend such tribal trivialities: fairness, and freedom.”
Beautifully put.
@Stuart Lambert welcome to the party and its fantastic to hear about the energy and commitment that you and all the other new members will bring to the rejuvenation process. And also the extremely positive reasons and rationale that you all bring – that of being proud of our achievements in government and determined that that record of action should not be swept under the carpet but built upon.
I was really struck by this comment of yours: “1) Don’t be pulled back to the past by those who disagreed with the coalition. There is pride and moral assuredness is what we did; and excitement about the future.”
This is something that a great many contributors to this board would do well to take note of.
“Of course, we are but an assortment of new, fledgling members, without the stripes (and battle scars!) of longer standing activists. But, that said, one fact really struck all of us as we surveyed the bustling, buzzing room on Monday night. The new members who have joined since the election now comprise one fifth of the party’s entire membership.”
Please do not get sucked into fighting yesterday’s wars with yesterday’s strategy and tactics. Generate your own, new approaches and try them out.
The far-sighted amongst the existing members will welcome this and relish the fresh approach you bring. Do not be put off by the nay-sayers and the “when wes”. Innovate. Experiment. And win.
The very best of luck going forward.
Stuart – welcome to the party – great to have some pint drinkers here. You seem to be expressing a view which many new joiners say that we should take pride in the coalition. I think we should take pride in the good bits – the liberal bits but I think we ARE entitled to feel moral revulsion against the Tory crimes committed with our complicity which we are quite rightly opposing. The sad fact is that many lib dem voters who did approve of the coalition did switch and vote Tory and may do so again(30% of our 2010 vote). Our natural historic supporters deserted the party when it became clear that the Coalition of National necessity was going to compromise long standing liberal policy pledges like principled opposition to tuition fees. There went the other long standing (30% to Labour and the Greens). We MUST reconnect with historic past members and voters (4,9 million) as well as welcoming a new generation of Lib Dem members who might see only the good in the coalition. Forgive me for also seeing the bad as well. Both are valid viewpoints and we will only win seats again when we learn to reconcile them. So yes, no dash to the left, but lets not sit in the centre of the road either, we’ve stayed here to long and been hit by the Tory bus. The first step in reconnection is to admit the truth about what really happened in the past 2010-2015 and then tell the truth about real liberal values mean to us for the future in 2020.
Excellent piece. Welcome to the party!
The problem is that the coalition was good for the country but an electoral disaster for the party. We have to learn and proceed from that basis.
@theakes but as a UK citizen as well as party member I’d far rather have that than conditions that were good for the party but bad for the country, and so would most voters.
“The problem is that the coalition was good for the country but an electoral disaster for the party. We have to learn and proceed from that basis.”
Agree completely. We have to ensure that a) we’re in a position to go into coalition in the future and then b) we handle said coalition far far better than this one was handled.
The mistake wasn’t going into coalition, the mistake was trying to pretend our economic centrism was the only distinguishing feature of the party and forgetting all about the liberalism that makes use distinctive from all the other parties currently competing within the UK.
@Jonathan Pile ” but I think we ARE entitled to feel moral revulsion against the Tory crimes committed with our complicity”
Which “crimes” are those, Jonathan?
The only crimes I’m aware of any recent government committing are those by Tony Blair in Iraq, which were crimes against International Law.
This is exactly the sort of overly hyperbolic language which is frankly silly and hugely off-putting to our new members and supporters.
Yes, the Tories may have had policies that we disagreed with but to call them “crimes” is both self-defeating navel-gazing and self-flaggelation of the worst kind and an insult to those who are the victims of real crimes.
And frankly, those “crimes” weren’t deemed as such by 37% of the electorate, were they?
Stuart, the enthusiasm and commitment of all our new members is vital to the painful rebuilding that now has to take place, so welcome to you all. Fighting for ‘Freedom and Fairness’ is a good cause but to achieve it you first have to actually win elections and secondly you have to be clear about what policies you would then implement to achieve your principles in reality.
There is a difference between ‘disagreeing with coalition’ and ‘disagreeing with the appalling way coalition was handled.’
Should we have gone into Coalition with the Tories? Very probably yes even though I hated the idea of doing so. We were a small Third Party in a FPTP electoral system which meant that, in all the 32 years that I have given my life over to campaigning for the Liberal Democrats, Coalition Government was the only possible way into Westminster Government. We also believe in PR which if achieved makes Coalitions the norm rather than the exception.
But should we have had a Rose Garden ‘love in’ approach to coalition? No.
Should we have told the voters that this was not a ‘marriage of convenience but a meeting of minds’, that there ‘was not a cigarette paper between us and the Cons in coalition’, that (caught when Nick thought he was talking to David Cameron off microphone) ‘if we carry on like this we will have nothing to disagree over at the next election’? No.
Should we have trusted the Tories as ‘people we could work with’ who would not back stab us over the AV referendum and Lords reform? No.
Should we have dropped PR as a condition of Coalition? No. Remember that the Liberals did not enter Coalition in 1974 precisely because Heath would not concede PR. Such a negotiating stance had long been the basis of Lib Dem pre election discussions but I well recall Nick Clegg, prior to 2010, telling a Parliamentary Party meeting that PR ‘was no longer the deal breaker.’
Should the Leader have surrounded himself with ivory tower thinkers as his senior strategists? No.
Should we, on the advice of those strategists, have sought to reposition the Liberal Democrats as a purist economic liberal party on the model last seen with the ‘classic liberalism’ of Gladstone but not seen (in the UK) over the last 100 years from Lloyd George through Keynes and Beveridge and on to Charles Kennedy? No.
All of that is just as regards strategy and positioning and before we get on to critiquing individual policies.
We have just experienced the worst single electoral disaster ever to befall the Party, a disaster that did not hit us ‘out of the blue’ but was thoroughly signposted in advance, in every election disaster from 2011 -2014 as well as in our consistently low opinion poll ratings from autumn 2010 to May 2015. The last thing we need now is a more of the same/steady as she goes approach. Otherwise we will never ever again win enough electoral influence to be able to do anything practical about trying to achieve ‘freedom and fairness’ however we might define the policies that might achieve those principles.
@Paul Holmes “Should we, on the advice of those strategists, have sought to reposition the Liberal Democrats as a purist economic liberal party on the model last seen with the ‘classic liberalism’ of Gladstone but not seen (in the UK) over the last 100 years from Lloyd George through Keynes and Beveridge and on to Charles Kennedy? No. ”
What evidence do you have to back this up, Paul? From what I saw of party policy and strategy during this time it was hardly market red in tooth and claw, it was some tinkering around the edges. Basically the minor sorts of differences you’d expect between people committed to open competition and free markets but subject to regulation where appropriate.
I just don’t buy that there was some massive shift to the right – if anything we were far too timid. Where were the education vouchers, where was the introduction of health insurance, where was the attack on corporatism and monopolistic behaviour?
One of the reasons Lib Dems should be proud of the coalition is because it was broadly pro business. At the moment I’m trying to help raise finance for a new specialist mobile phone company and unless there is a chance for a decent profit investors are just not going to be interested. The new products won’t get made.
The social enterprise model is an interesting one, but unless there is a low tax environment people are just not going to be interested in the additional restrictions.
theakes21st May ’15 – 2:59pm
“The problem is that the coalition was good for the country but an electoral disaster for the party. We have to learn and proceed from that basis.”
Accurate and to the point Theakes.
Jonathan Pile21st May ’15 – 2:44pm
Much truth and sense here also Jonathan.
I am however slightly puzzled as to who, if anyone, has stated that the party should dash or move at any other speed ‘to the left’. The party itself remains essentially where it has long been. And my own experience in speaking to our newer members is that they are good solid Liberal Democrats and pretty similar to the pre-existing membership.
Those who believe we have just been joined by Mr (J) Browne’s boys and girls may be in for a surprise.
Their overwhelming belief in fairness, freedom, democracy and a green sustainable future looks and sounds very promising to me. Welcome to the Liberal Democrats!
MatGB21st May ’15 – 3:33pm
Just one comment Wow!
Have you written before – are you a new member, a new poster or someone with a new identity?
Paul Holmes21st May ’15 – 3:39pm
And Paul’s post also.
You can’t be a member of this party without being an optimist 🙂
Paul’s post tempers our shared optimism and dogged commitment with experience. If we fail to learn from our mistakes, the sacrifices of the coalition period will have been in vain and the Tories will, issue by issue, reverse the majority of our coalition policy gains.
It would be good to see a specific survey of the opinions of Liberal Democrat new joiners since the election.
It is entirely appropriate that Lib Dems should meet in the pub, a community asset we did so much to protect in government. Greg Mulholland in particular should have a standing invitation.
If we are to avoid being exclusive, though, these events should be offered to all new members not only those using one much-criticised social medium.
Labour have had an even bigger surge of enthusiastic new members after the election. In their case, I fear that they are predominantly a highly unrepresentative group of people who – unlike the nation at large – became fanatical Milifans, swooned over the Edstone, lament Labour’s defeat, and want to spend the next five years thumping out the same message in the vain hope that it will eventually be heard. Ironically, the final nail in Labour’s coffin could be this “dead cat bounce” of Milibandism. New members aren’t always good news….
theakes 21st May ’15 – 2:59pm
The problem is that the coalition was good for the country but an electoral disaster for the party. We have to learn and proceed from that basis.
We absolutely did do the right thing. Even given the election results I would do it all again even though one might adjust the ongoing strategy. In the past we have asked people to lay down their lives for the sake of the country so the least we could do as a party was to step forward when the country needed it and regardless of political risk to ourselves.
Gareth 21st May ’15 – 8:57pm
“….Greg Mulholland in particular should have a standing invitation.”
More than that! Greg Mulholland should be given a standing ovation.
Not only did he do something effective as an MP during the last five years, ( something of real practical importance to the lives of ordinary people across the country) — but he kept his seat as well !
If we are to avoid being exclusive, though, these events should be offered to all new members
Some commenters here seem to take pride in what they see as a worthy self-sacrifice for the good of the country (“good for the country but an electoral disaster for the party”). This is completely wrong: what is the point of being a member of a political party if it is not to advance the electoral fortunes of that party? If you see electoral sacrifice as a noble goal in the aim of getting certain policies implemented, then maybe you ought not to be in a political party at all, and your political objectives would be best served in a pressure group or think tank.
Going into coalition was the right thing given the 2010 election result. What was totally wrong was, as some others have mentioned, the execution. The rose garden love-in, tuition fees, failure to draw attention to the difference between our actual policies and what the Coalition was doing. We should have made it clear from the outset that the Coalition was the result of the electoral arithmetic, that it was a business arrangement and no more, that our Tory colleagues were not our friends, that we would have done things differently if in government on our own, and so would the Tories. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which we would have made a net gain of seats in 2015, but we would not have lost anywhere near as badly had we run the Coalition as I have just suggested. The self-sacrifice was not inevitable.
There is only one lesson from the catastrophe and Paul Holmes nails it:
“Should we have dropped PR as a condition of Coalition? No. Remember that the Liberals did not enter Coalition in 1974 precisely because Heath would not concede PR. Such a negotiating stance had long been the basis of Lib Dem pre election discussions but I well recall Nick Clegg, prior to 2010, telling a Parliamentary Party meeting that PR ‘was no longer the deal breaker.’ ”
If the Tories had said no we would have kept our principles and the country would have endured no more than a few months of minority Tory Government and then 4 years of Tory majority Government (we now look forward to five years of Tory majority Government) with a probable increase in Lib Dem seats in 2014/early 2015.
If the Tories had said yes, we would probably have lost around 8 seats rather than been left with 8 seats.
Wow, thanks for all the feedback everyone. I’m glad to have sparked a good discussion. Picking off a few posters:
@TCO, thanks for all the constructive input to the central argument.
@Jonathan, your point goes to the heart of where we go from here. We of course lost a lot of support – the traditional, long-standing and in many cases highly ideological support that has leached away to the Greens or elsewhere. But as the rise in new members suggests, we are gaining new support, and our time in government has been central to that. It will change us as a party. We are not the same simple party of pure protest that we maybe once were. And probably won’t be that again. Is that a good or a bad thing? I think the former…but it’s an open discussion topic.
@Paul Holmes. ABSOLUTELY. You nail it. I think that it’s inarguable that in the messy confluence of forces that abounded after the 2012 election – economic duty and political responsibility, giddy excitement, resentment, fear and, yes, to a degree, a hunger (or enthusiasm) for power – our party, inexperienced in government, were naive in many ways. The sham of an AV vote was one. So yes, we shouldn’t look back at the last five years through rose garden spectacles! To your final point, no, we can’t simply be ‘steady as she goes’. But neither should we recoil from some of the thinking that was central to getting us into government in the first place. The thinking and viewpoints we’re (admittedly anecdotally) detecting from our fellow new members is that we put in some strong foundations, at a high cost of blood, sweat and tears, but that we need to build on them and not replace them.
@Dvid Allen Watch this space for the survey of new members. We are fully subscribed on our second London libdempint newbies event, and event number 3 is filling up fast. Getting some hard data from this new community is something Peter, Josh, Tom, Max and I want to do next.
@Stephen Heskey – I’m very much a new member, though a long-standing voter. I wrote a piece last week, but nothing before that. It’s all authentic here, no identity-swapping! You can find me on Twitter @stuartmlambert
@Gareth – these events are open to all new members, not just those on Twitter (the network I assume you refer to). Sign up for event no. 3 here: http://www.londonlibdems.org.uk/psigrist/london_libdem_newbies_meetup_3_libdempint
Adrian Sanders was considerably nearer the scene of the crime than I at the time, but I do wonder if the offer of the Tories on AV by alll (voters and politicians) was received in the naieve understanding in the week after the election that Labour was ideologicially committed to it and would back it in a referendum and therefore it was a reasonable certainty that at least a sizeable minority would result that would move the whole cause of electoral reform forwards, without putting the more ‘controversial’ and ‘risky’ PR/STV up for a referendum as a sacrificial lamb.
Anyway, any such assumptions turned out to be hogswash. Labour couldn’t bring itself to back its own policy, electoral reform was hung out to dry, and in hindsight, we would maybe have been better advised to stick to our guns about STV.
But anyone who says that they can tell you what would have happened in 2010 if X hadn’t happened is … er … over-optimistic about their ability to access parallel realities. Unfortunately, we are in this one, now, and have to deal with it.
For one thing, it is entirely possible that Ed Miliband would not have been Labour leader without the Coalition.
All due respect to Adrian, though, whom I admire.
@Alex
“what is the point of being a member of a political party if it is not to advance the electoral fortunes of that party?”
I agree. Though I respect and understand the position of those who like the purity of opposition and protest, I feel that we should be ambitious enough to want to climb our way back to power. Being ‘power hungry’ is thrown about as an insult, as if the desire to be in a position of power is to be reviled.
We – all of us, every one – want to change things, surely? Well, the power to change things requires us to win the operative word in that sentence: power.
Adrian, there is a separate and important discussion to be had over PR and the party’s commitment to it. Clearly it would be in our electoral favour, as things stand, to shift to a PR system (though there is little chance of a majority Tory govt granting that any time soon!). But it’s worth us all recognising that right now we’d be governed by a Tory/UKIP coalition, with the latter having around 80 MPs in parliament. That, frankly, terrifies me. I wonder if we shouldn’t explore campaigning for a second AV vote, rather than for full PR?
@ Stuart Lambert “I wonder if we shouldn’t explore campaigning for a second AV vote, rather than for full PR?”
Hell no. AV is dead and buried and we should not try to remove the wooden stake from its heart. To those saying we should have insisted on PR I would say hindsight is a wonderful thing – and I suspect we would have been seen as utterly unreasonable not just by Labour and the Tories but by the genral public too. A coalition would not have happened and we would have had minority Tory government followed by a near certain second election and a majority Conservative government thereafter. We should not give up the fight for a more democratic electoral system – and STV remains IMO by far the best. Also, don’t assume that the votes under a more proportional system would have mirrored those under FPTP.
@Julian Is it dead and buried? Maybe it has a last dying breath in it! I instinctively dislike any kind of binary answer… we shouldn’t accept something is dead and buried if we believe it could or should be back on the table. I’ve always been a fan of AV as it is a good way of ensuring better proportionality while also nullifying the threat from extremist outlier parties. Normally, the Lib Dems would be a lot of people’s second choice. I can’t find the hard data, but I THINK under AV we would have got something like 30 or 40 MPs on May 7th.
I think the problem with our promoting reform of the voting system was that it was completely irrelevant at that time to most of the population who were struggling with all the problems that recession brings. It may well be possible now because of the outrage UKIP supporters feel about not getting the seats they feel they should have and because of the SNP. The growth of smaller parties and their concerns about the voting system has brought the question of PR into the minds of more people and it looks less like something we advocate for our own purposes.
As a voice in the wilderness, I would have been tempted to join the Liberal Democrats had you been more circumspect about your role in coalition. This article seems quite heavy on conformation bias anyway, but I’m not sure it means anything to say “look at all these people who’ve joined us because of what we’ve done” when you don’t know how many people haven’t for exactly the same reason. It’s completely meaningless in a vacuum, and of no particular use to strategy.
On another point, I’m not convinced that what the Lib Dems achieved in government is greater than what they would have achieved out of it. I suspect that had they refused government in 2010 – even if the Tories had, as you often claim on here, certainly won a majority – we would be looking at a strong liberal voice in parliament now, with less of the desire of us in Scotland to break away from the UK and the desire of them in South England to break away from Europe that were, in large part, a result of its collapse when you were in power. I think “uniting the UK” and “staying committed to Europe” would have been much more admirable achievements for the Lib Dems than “a not especially progressive rise in minimum income tax”, and I think you’re wrong to assume otherwise. In my view you would have achieved far more being out of power, and ironically have had more power in influencing the UK’s direction.
It’s great to have a lot of new members. It isn’t hugely surprising that they’re very positive about our record in government. If they weren’t, they’d be unlikely to have joined. Our local event will be on June 1st and Stuart’s points are useful.
Yes, we achieved some real gains in government. But this line made me pretty near despair: “Don’t be pulled back to the past by those who disagreed with the coalition. There is pride and moral assuredness is what we did”. Well, many people agreed with going into coalition but think we played our hand rather badly. Yes, you can pick out examples of “moral assuredness” – stopping the “snoopers’ charter and bringing in the pupil premium, for example; but was it morally assured to tear up that famous pledge? To let the Tories clobber the poorest people (on benefits) while concentrating on helping the not-quite so-poor (low earners on income tax)? To fail to make the least effort to stand up for local government services, while trumpeting that we were freeing local government from shackles (only with no money to spend on locally-determined services)?
Yes, we must keep talking about the good things we achieved, but also looking honestly and unsparingly at what went wrong. Then we might be able to rebuild not only on the basis of new members who liked what we did, but also natural Liberals who didn’t and who didn’t vote for us.
Julian, you say ‘don’t assume votes under PR would have mirrored those under FPTP.’ But that’s the whole point. For three decades we have averaged around 20% of the General Election vote and around 8 or 9% of seats. For a long time the LD stance was: enter Coalition when the opportunity arises, inevitably lose some support due to a) taking decisions in Government and b) losing some of our tactical voters. But with PR introduced as the deal breaker for Coalition then even if we lost as much as half our 20% of the vote we would still elect as many or more MP’s as before under the unfair FPTP system. Unfortunately someone decided short term power for 5 years was more important than constitutional reform for the long term.
Stuart , you talk of ‘not abandoning the thinking that got us into Government.’ I don’t understand what people believe that was. In 2005 Charles led us to 22% of the vote and 62 MP’s (the highest number since 1922). In 2010 Nick led us to 23% of the vote and 57 MP’s (at that time the highest numerical fall in our number of MP’s since 1970). In 1983 we had nearly 26% of the vote and 22 MP’s. What got us into Government was that at last the Russian Roulette electoral system of FPTP finally produced the arithmetic for a ‘hung parliament’ for the first time since February 1974. The ‘new thinking’ then produced the consecutive series of electoral disasters from 2011- 2015.
@Stuart Lambert: You miss my point, which was an attack on the “it was worth going back to almost fitting in a taxi for the previous 5 years of power” brigade. No it was not, and nor was it in any way inevitable that going into coalition would result in a loss of support on the scale we saw. It didn’t happen in Scotland or Wales after our times in coalition there, for instance. Also this “purity of opposition” thing is a strawman. This is not the SWP or TUSC. Most of us want power in order to change things for the better. Unfortunately many of the architects of the Coalition wanted power for its own sake, and that is what caused our electoral disaster.
Hooray for libdempint idea. I am a new member living in the west country. Throughout the election campaign I was asking to get together to discuss real fundamentals in an informal way and I’m so glad someone has started it. We need energy and creativity now, new ideas, new methods.
I like the fundamental values which is why I joined but want to see an overhaul in how they are drawn down into this modern world and made relevant and understandable to people. The tectonic plates of power in the world is shifting and plenty will be swept away. Liberalism needs to sharpen up.
The point of the party is not in my opinion primarily to win power. It exists to win the hearts and minds of people who live here. To engage people by being relevant to their lives – all that grass roots community stuff. Then they will vote accordingly. To my mind the coalition was generally successful but with a very bad press. The greater sin was an appalling campaign – the main theme of the Libdems seemed to be to say ‘We are between Conservatives and Labour in the middle.’ That is an unappetising location not an inspiring identity. Politicians seem to be completely lost in politics.
As to ‘fairness and freedom’ these are empty adman words that mean nothing if they are free floating in space. That is too easy. Freedom is only relevant if it is tied to responsibility. This needs to be explored. And fairness – I’ve heard the Labour Party and the Conservatives use these words to suit themselves. How are the Libdems different?
Oh well I am having a vent. Looking forward to meeting like-minded people in the pub for good old fashioned talk.