Rumours in the Telegraph this weekend of a rebrand, a name change, a leadership challenge? Notwithstanding the dubious origins of a story attempting to rub salt on wounds open since 1988 I mulled over the possibilities. Having debunked 2 assertions in the article I didn’t even bother to consider the prospect of a leadership challenge.
Would we ditch the freedom bird for scales of justice? Considering the People’s Justice Party and more recently the Jury Team used scales, I should hope not.
And renaming the party to include the word “social”? Some members in my local party born after 1988 can be forgiven for not knowing about the merger with the Social Democratic Party. I’m too young myself to have been involved directly, but other members tell of the long and acrimonious struggle over the name.
Internal politics aside, there are serious issues with voter confusion. Any combination of Social, Liberal, Democratic and Party might look a bit like the SDLP – the Social and Democratic Labour Party (Northern Ireland).
What about changing Liberal Democrats to Social Democrats? Whilst liberal has always been a dirty word to Glen Beck, Sun and Daily Mail readers alike; and has recently become tarnished with many socialists, I have one thing to say on this subject. Are we nuts?!
Liberal defines the core of the party. It also happens to be the way I predict politics is heading over the next decade. Fairness and balance come through understanding what freedom and liberty means. For example, individual freedoms – human rights – still require a balance: freedom of speech versus freedom from harassment; freedom of the press versus right to a private home life. These issues will define the next decade.
More and more people are realising how important this balancing act is, especially now many of us have so much personal information online. And with the barriers to home publishing so low, some ordinary people risk feeling both ends of the equation. Bloggers and campaigners risk being bullied by police or libel lawyers to remove or amend blog posts, whilst some sections of the mainstream media might intrude on their home life by scraping their private Facebook profile after approaching a “friend”.
By standing proud as a Liberal Democrat and taking on the emerging issues that cause concern we can more than make up for the high profile losses of late. We must augment our already strong identity by drawing attention to our core beliefs, not dilute it by focussing on branding and image; champion the issues we believe in rather than attempt to appease a very broad cross-section of the electorate.
Ok, the Lib Dems as a minority party in the coalition are getting more than their fair share of blame, but will a re-brand really fix this? Being party to cuts and tuition fees has already lost us some traditional supporters – we can’t change this. We must now focus on winning new votes, not fixing an image problem after the fact.
Cuts that are proportionate, careful and fair are not necessarily at odds with the liberal cause, in that reducing the size of the state reduces its influence over the people, restoring liberty.
I make this last point with ID cards and a string of trivial laws in mind, but the principle holds across so many areas. If the government hasn’t got the cash to spend, it can’t introduce expensive harebrained schemes which limit our freedom but offer limited tangible benefit to wider society. I make this next point with the Digital Economy Act and the national internet filter proposal in mind.
Some people don’t like the word liberal. So what? Some people hate conservatism or socialism. We can’t please all of the people, and we shouldn’t try. In a name the Liberal Democrats have an identity closely aligned with our policies. Please don’t change that.
James Firth is a Liberal Democrat member in South West Surrey.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
AM
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
16 Comments
“Liberal defines the core of the party. It also happens to be the way I predict politics is heading over the next decade.Liberal defines the core of the party. It also happens to be the way I predict politics is heading over the next decade.”
Very much agreed, adding “social” would be a death-sentence to my interest in the party, and the closer you move towards classical liberalism the better as far as i am concerned.
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/labours-problem-and-the-lib-dem-opportunity/
Concur with the above. While it may be simply a name change, removing ‘liberal’ from the name of the party would be a step too far for me.
It’s all oblox in the Torygraph.
Whereas, I suggest we update Spitting Image’s “The Two Davids” to 2011:
David Laws: David?
David Heath; Yes, David?
DL: I suggest we rename the party
DH: What a good idea, David
DL: Yes, in the spirit of the times, I suggest we cut two words from our name, The Liberal Democrat Party. One word I’ll choose, and the other I’ll choose for you.
DH: An excellent idea, David
DL: So, on the one hand I suggest you choose “The”, and on the other hand, I’ll choose “Democrat”.
DH: So that means we’ll now be called the Liberal Party?
DL: Yes David, that’s right
DH: Oh David, you’re so masterful….
I further back up the first two posters points, that if the party got rid of the word liberal from its name I would have a serious think about renewing my membership.
You can see all the Liberal party manifestos here from 1900;
http://www.libdems.co.uk/manifestos/
If you look at the 1979 manifesto (ie before the SDP), I very much doubt there is a single word that any social democrat can object to.
I do not see the need for the name change.
The government is currently doing things that is bound to make it unpopular and unless that changes then there is no point in rebranding either. The new brand will be quickly tainted otherwise.
Nick Clegg, speaking in Sheffield on announcing his decision to run for the party leadership:
….”I am a Liberal.”
*(see the dvd I made for his campaign-team)
Sorry – have I travelled back in time to 1989!
If the whole business of rebranding weren’t so obviously Telegraph fantasising/trouble-making, I’d suggest, based on Clegg’s speech to spring conference, that the only name change he was planning was to drop “Democrat”. The whole speech was about liberals, liberalism and the liberal party. If you worry about labels, it didn’t feel very inclusive for an old social democrat…
Thanks for all the comments.
Was it an issue worth raising? Obviously I thought so, or I wouldn’t have bothered writing this. Whatever the heritage, the Telegraph story got reasonably wide exposure. People in my party are talking about it, and some don’t know the history.
Whatever your opinion of the Telegraph, it’s a good paper and doesn’t invent stories to fulfil a political remit. This story came from somewhere, and that to me makes this worth talking about (full disclosure, I have affiliations with the Telegraph. I know for a fact the newsroom is not ram-packed with raving Tories. Okay, you can hit me now!)
The thrust of my post is that it’s inevitable any party in government will make enemies. Add to that you get very few complaints when government spending is increased, and lots when it’s cut. I believe there is a silent majority that understands or at least sympathises with our position, let’s not be overly concerned about fixing a problem that we don’t yet know exists.
No, we can’t drop the democrats! (1) the name is taken – the Liberal Party still exists in UK politics as a breakaway from those who opposed the SDP merger. Also, what’s wrong with being a democrat?
The time to rebrand will be the time we have ditched toxic policies and toxic leadership, not before.
@ James Firth
“Whatever your opinion of the Telegraph, it’s a good paper and doesn’t invent stories to fulfil a political remit. This story came from somewhere”
Of course it will have come from somewhere, like all those stories that were floated about the Lib Dems supposedly forming some kind of electoral alliance with the Tories, which were all kite flying by the Tories with no substance.
The point is not where stories come from, it is where they pass through on the way to the news pages. Verification of actual facts should be one of the stopping off points along the path to publication, don’t you think?
As for the Telegraph not inventing stories to fulfil a political remit, you’re joking, aren’t you?
@Malcolm Todd: I always enjoy it when people can have utterly different impressions of the same event (seriously). I came out of that speech, and agreed with friends afterwards, the speech seemed designed to desperately distance Clegg from liberalism – he constantly harked on about the SDP, about Shirley Williams, about Beveridge, about the social traditions of the party. I didn’t think that was a bad thing, but in terms of the rhetoric (if not necessarily with actions) it seemed to be a very obvious play to former SDP/social liberal concerns.
“As for the Telegraph not inventing stories to fulfil a political remit, you’re joking, aren’t you?”
It is not for nothing that the telegraph is know as “the other newspaper of record”, chill with the hyperbole.
David Allen. So not for another decade or so then 😀
The problem with brand is that people no longer know what the lib dem brand is. There is the when at Westminster brand that few understand other than , yes dave what can i do for you dave, thank you for my job dave, then there is the local council lib dem brand which is we hate the tory cuts and fighting tory council’s – forgetting they are also lib dem cuts and then you get the Scottish and Welsh varieties. It shows abject failure of brand management at the top and total lack of identity and ownership for what the party is about from within and with grass roots supporters. The damage is too deep to we wallpaperd over with a namechange or propaganda camaign. tne party needs to go back to basics and agree what it is and stick to its principles…and yes Nick – even if that means you not having the status on the political stage you so crave
Rather than changing the “Liberal” word, which is vital, last year I blogged about the “Democrat” word in our title . . . and decided we still need that one as well:-)