For many of our voters the Lib Dems have always been a party to the left of British politics. A party who has more in common with Labour than the Tories, and who sees their chief enemy as the Conservatives. However, our survival now rests on winning over the very people who many of us once wrote off as true blue Tories.
The fracture on the right of British politics gives a significant opportunity to unite around a fiscally conservative but socially liberal banner: the same banner which is being flown by our presence in coalition. This may seem unpalatable to members who think that we must do everything to distance ourselves from the Tories and recapture our more natural voters on the centre left.
However, it is my opinion that these voters have been lost, and will not be won back in the elections to come. How could we win them back? “Woops! Sorry, just had to do something completely different in government but now I’m back with you?” This logic is madness. The party must realise that fighting elections to the left of New Labour, only to end up in government with the Tories, is a huge problem.
We must accept that we cannot, nor should we, out-compete Red Ed on the left. This is not just because we would have to abandon economic literacy, but also because it would be electorally futile. Our brand is now blacklisted on the left and it will take some time to change that, time we do not have for the elections ahead.
However all is not lost. The problems of the Conservative party offer a tantalising opportunity. The first being that UKIP is acting as a sledge hammer to the Conservatives; if not electorally then ideologically. It is safe to say that many Conservatives are in panic mode, with local associations de-selecting those who supported gay marriage. There is a palpable desire for the Tories to move to the right in a futile attempt to win back a perceived right flank.
Secondly, Tory rhetoric around aspiration and social mobility felt sincere from the grocer’s daughter. It does not however, coming from the Etonian class. I see it as a crisis for the Tories, that their manifesto is being compiled by 5 Etonian’s. A crisis which should be exploited.
Moderate Conservatives, those being fiscally conservative but socially liberal, are losing faith with the Tories who look insincere on aspiration and increasingly radical in their lurch to the right. The fact that Warwick Lib Dems are seeing Tories cross the floor to us out of alienation from rhetoric on gay marriage, immigration and Europe gives me hope for the future.
My message is this; now have shown ourselves to be fiscally conservative/economically liberal (by being in coalition) fiscally conservative yet socially liberal voters can and should be won over. Whether we should have gone in to government with the Tories is a subject of contention, but a subject that we can no longer change. We are where we are; for better or worse. Right now we must make the best of the situation and aggravate the divide in the Tory party. With UKIP pulling from the right and the Lib Dems pulling from the centre we must rip the Conservatives in two.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
David Raw
Tom Reeve
Nonconformistradical
Sam Ammar
Mark Johnston
87 Comments
Well, the first sentence of this put me off.
Just because the press adhere to a binary model of politics informed by Duverger’s Law does NOT mean it is correct or true. The reason our party has both left and right wings (along with christ knows how many other factions) but we are still one party is BECAUSE WE ARE ALL LIBERALS.
THIS is why I hate all that “we must anchor ourselves in the centre ground” tosh that Our Glorious Leader keeps coming out with. Positioning ourselves at some point between the two other parties on the left-right binary spectrum is pointless, futile, self-defeating claptrap. Liberalism doesn’t fit on the left right binary spectrum because it’s a different philosophy, and that’s WHY I’m a Liberal and not a Tory or Labourite with Liberal leanings.
[/rant]
” their manifesto is being compiled by 5 Estonian’s.”
Do you belong to UKIP?
[Moderator note: Thankyou. Corrected]
To be fair, we’re all in the same party because of our electoral system. Under STV we wouldn’t be. The “we’re all liberals” line is just a common thread we’ve spun between completely disparate wings of the party to keep us friendly.
Under STV all the main parties would split. This does not mean that the Lib Dems as they are currently constituted fit neatly anywhere on the left-right spectrum.
I am afraid that this way my resignation lies.
Clegg has always been keen on this viewpoint. It wasn’t until after the election some of us realised he’d just used the Tory marginals as an excuse to shift the whole party into ground best left to the Tories. We never got this far by changing our nature to fit Labour or Tory narratives, since we’ve done so we’re at our lowest ebb. I believe this is the kind of thinking that will cremate the remains of the current party and help us start again. As such, I welcome it!
If one accepts the logic of coalition politics, it is madness to tie yourself only to one potential coalition partner. I don’t believe that left-wing voters have been lost and cannot be won back, as this article asserts, but if we position ourselves as interested only in competing for the support of current Conservative voters, they certainly will be.
We can always, of course, look at the lessons of history. Over the past 150 years, there have been two parties that followed the course advocated by the article: the Liberal Unionists, who split from the mainstream Liberal Party in 1886, and the Liberal Nationals (later National Liberal Party) who did the same in 1931. Both parties became permanent coalition partners of the Tories – and disappeared into the Conservative Party, in 1912 and 1968, respectively.
Politics is a dynamic. The Centre left will rise again just as soon as Ed Milliband shifts the Labour Party further to the left and loses the next General Election. If the last 35 years were just a dream and a government of the Left was elected in 2015, then the Conservatives in Opposition could fracture with some Tory MPs joining UKIP. Its an unlikely but possible scenario. For us an electoral alliance with another Party can only be justified if it has a commitment to deliver PR. Would a fractured or weakened Conservative Party or a resurgent Labour Party deliver this? Will turkeys vote for Christmas?
If this is our message to voters in 2015, we won’t have a future anyway, IMHO.
You can never divide the Conservatives when once they get within a year of a general election. They are professional politicians. Just wait til you see them after they get a kicking in May. Ranks will close.
The Conservative vote in this country presently amounts to 12 UKIP and 34% Tory … the next 14 months will see a battle between these two elements of the C vote for and within the 46% total.
The other great struggle is where the 10% Lib Dem + 36% Labour vote goes – and not so much across the nation but especially within our held seats.
There will be some switch from these two lumps of votes but not a great deal. If Labour’s Cost of Living Narrative survives then the two lumps will stay about the same size. 46%ish to , wow, 46%ish
If the Tory narrative of ‘don’t give the keys back to the guys that crashed the car, we are building a recovery gains traction the Tory/UKIP lump will grow at the cost of the Labour vote.
Then, if the Tory narrative to UKIP supporters gains traction : don’t let split the vote round here. Then the UKPI vote shifts back to the Conservatives.
If you accept the above dynamics, then, you have a perfect strategy – which is a) completely the opposite to the Reeves strategy with which the Party began this Parliament (and which did such damage to us) and also, if you listen closely to what people like Olly Grender are saying (Politics Today, yesterday) it is exactly what our strategy is becoming: ‘persuading Labour supporters listen to us again’. [which seems exactly the opposite of what you are advocating above – which is a restating of the Reeves strategy]
I agree with Simon Jenkins in today’s ‘Guardian’. The mass voting fodder for UKIP is very likely to come from disillusioned, middle aged, male, white working class voters totally cheesed off with Labour since its ‘New’ manifestation, but in terms of actual SEATS, I think it will be the Tories who are hit most as UKIP has more blazer-wearing, retired activists in Tory seats who will be crucial in actually getting the vote out. Result: Tories mainly lose seats, fail to have a majority of any kind (and some kind of pact with Labour on the German model would be totally impossible) and I believe the only show in town will be a Lib-Lab Coalition (NOT the ghastly pact of the 1970s). Goodbye, Cameron (ejected within days – like Kinnock for Labour post-1992), the Tories swerve ultra-right (Theresa May? Liam Fox? Who knows?) and de facto merge with UKIP, leaving their centre/’real’ (pre-Thatcher) Tories to join the Lib Dems (as they basically share the same goals of “A stronger economy and a fairer society”.
“However, it is my opinion that these voters have been lost, and will not be won back in the elections to come. How could we win them back? “Woops! Sorry, just had to do something completely different in government but now I’m back with you?” This logic is madness. The party must realise that fighting elections to the left of New Labour, only to end up in government with the Tories, is a huge problem.”
And that is exactly the reason why I will never vote Liberal Democrats again if this is the stance the party takes.
What your basically implying is that you will do anything to get into power, even if that means adopting policies that deep down you disagree with. Just to win votes.
What happened to standing up for what you believe in? regardless of whether it populist crowd puller or not. What happens to integrity & values.
I want a party that is passionate about it’s beliefs and cause, A party who will champion those causes loudly and be a voice to those who share those beliefs and represent them accordingly in parliamentary votes.
The Liberal Democrats will never be a party for me if all their interested in is power and will do “whatever” it takes to get it by abandoning their moral fiber.
There are several factors whereby the argument holds water, not that we should change political direction. We should be in no doubt that in the next few years the Party will be acting like a political life raft for many disillusioned left wing Tories, why?
As UKIP has gathered its populist strength, Right wing Tories have begun to wrest control, there is a version of Mcarthyism at play in the Tories which is going to help us.
Once, the General Election is over win or lose the battle over Europe in the Tories will really get under way and Therin lies the opportunity for a realignment of the centre in British Politics, if left wing Tories displaced by civil war need a home, then they should be welcomed.The battle for a Liberal Britain is now underway, the mistake we ate masking with UKIP and right wing Tories is believing its all about the EU, its not. UKIP and their thirty allies want to redress the social and community gains made in the last 50 years and ape America.We have been warnrd
Let’s face it the vast majority of seats we hope to pick up are in basttlres with the Tories.
The mistake we are making is not realising that the objectives of the Tory Right and UKIP are not really about the EU but undoing international agreements that they feel ate stopping them pursue their real agenda and that is the rolling back of individual freedoms smnd community freedoms hard won over the past 50 years, they want to abandon zEutope and follow policies similar to the neo-cons in the USA. We should widen our attack on these fronts and explain what this will mean to individual people. The struggle for A Liberal Society is noe really on, if we can get the left of the Tory Party on board that’s fine by me!
I want a party that is passionate about it’s beliefs and cause, A party who will champion those causes loudly and be a voice to those who share those beliefs and represent them accordingly in parliamentary votes.
And a party which has the luxury of always being in opposition.
Drat! How do I edit all those spelling errors..must stop using a tiny keyboard…hope you follow the drift anyhow!
If this strategy succeeds in destroying the Conservative Party it will doubtless shift the balance of British politics substantially to the left. It is perverse that shifting one party to the right can do this, but that is the insanity of First Past the Post at work. And what it demonstrates how problematic it can be to take a principled position that is anything other than equidistant.
UKIP and the Greens, by pitching their tents relatively firmly on the right and on the left each make the work and the chances of the broader right, and left more difficult. FPTP means that minor parties of left and right undermine the causes they espouse.
There is room for a third party in the centre, largely because such a party is always “better than the other lot” to a majority of voters. But if Labour or the Tories were to become decidedly liberal, while we should cheer that, it would make things difficult for us as a party.
What Jennie said: Our liberalism unites us. Without the social liberal wing (however much Caspian deplores it) this party would end up meeting in a taxi cab again.
BTW, the point about Eton is rather undermined by the fact Nick Clegg went to Westminster. I don’t hold it against him, as I am a liberal, and anyway, he probably had no choice. But it is a fact, nonetheless, that he is just as privileged as those Caspian derides as ‘the Eton class’ .
The suggestion that New Labour, who ran a largely steady ship for 10 years before being undone by a global crisis (which Brown arguably did a lot to ameliorate) were any less competent economically than the Tories (Black Wednesday, Black Friday, Devaluation, Mass Unemployment, and an NHS with only 5% of GDP to its name) frankly beggars belief!
I doubt that Caspian personally remembers the ‘sincerity’ of the grocer’s daughter. If he does, he has lived the last 25 years in blinkers…
Matt is right to point out the importance of maintaining a strong identity. The idea that ” these voters have been lost, and will not be won back in the elections to come” is patently flawed. Many of the same voters have been won back to Labour after far more egregious actions and behaviour.
There are difficult questions ahead: no over all control in the next parliament will produce unpalatable choices. With Cameron set on EU renegotiation and a referendum and a challenging legacy, I cannot see another cohabitation with the Tories as a possibility, however coalition with Labour might only exacerbate the squeeze that has suppressed support for the party.
Perhaps it is fortunate this time that no overall control is not the most likely outcome, in which case I would expect Lib Dems to re-evaluate and regroup. The hope is that hindsight will be kinder on the Party.
The problem as I see it for the Lib Dems is that they are fighting for a ‘liberal’ Britain? What does that mean? It sounds to me like a broadly social/cultural concept for people who can AFFORD to make such thing their priority.
Most people in Britain are first and foremost concerned with economic issues? Did Thatcher make us too money obsessed? Maybe. But when people worry about whether the next generation will be bettter off than their parents and we face huge environmental and resource challenges it seems to me that any Party with real ambition needs to put those challenges at the heart of its message. Lib Dems are most trusted on the economy by only 6% of voters. The Tories get 30 odd and Labour 20 odd %. Until this Party can come up with a coherent economic identity it will remain an also ran Party that can win a few seats thanks to tactical voting (with appealing leaders like Ashdown and Kennedy) but not really that relevant. The Greens and Ukip might be finge parties but their unifying identity is clear. Liberalism is too nebulous.
This article, and some of the comments begs the question, why don’t the lib dems just dissolve and left leaning members join Labour, and right leaning members join the Tories to push both parties in a more liberal direction?
That would save any need to let down either left leaning liberal voters or right leaning liberal voters if you join any future coalition government.
g, our members have little in common with Labour and the Tories, whether they are left-leaning, right-leaning or centre-standing-up.
G- because the Liberal Democrats are about a perfect cocktail. A party who demands competence on the economy but also compassion and progressive fairness in our communities. Because the party sees that those in our society who need our help should receive it through redistributing opportunities and creating equality of opportunity. This cant be achieved through condemning people to life long unemployment through over generous welfare benefits or through draconian welfare cuts. I am dangerously close to uttering the wrong words……
there must be a third way.
“…the Lib Dems pulling from the centre.”
Ughhh… We are a radical party of conscience and reform. This means we are not a centre party but neither are we in danger of being Statist like Ed Miliband and Nu/old Labour or free-market /authoritarian (on welfare and education) fanatics like the Tories. UKIP is the repository at the moment for angry and disillusioned voters who do not feel listened to by an out of touch central London-based political class.
In other words, our party does not fit the paradigm the writer of the article is advocating.
The fact that Labour are economically illiterate does not mean that anyone on the left or centre has to be. I see this as another way of ditching voters like myself and turning into a National Liberal party that will itself be little more than a crutch the Tories will use when they fail to get a majority….
Joe, this is more about your voters, de fact any voter who leaves you for the tories or labour has decided left-leaning or right-leaning trumps being a liberal democrat.
Caspian, what you say may be true, but it’s not convincing the voter.
But what has happened to the “moderate” Tories? At the last general election they said they were Green, cared about poverty, were not going to commit to a top down reorganisation of the NHS, and altogether wanted to detoxify their image as the nasty party that kept them out of office for so long.
I struggle to think of any of them as moderate these days. I cannot think of any possible worthwhile reform that they intend to do in the next parliament that would make it worth going into Coalition with them again. You can interpret the wishes of the electorate in various ways, but as far as the activists are concerned, why would anyone want to get out of bed and deliver Focus only to get a more right wing coalition than the current one?
I do think the article writer rather gives the game away by describing Labour as economically illiterate. He doesn’t use the same term for the Tories. Whatever you think of Ed Balls (I’m no fan) he’s certainly a lot more economicaly literate than George Osborne. Margaret Thatcher (with her there is no alternative) has influenced the Lib Dems more than the party seems willing to accept.
“economically illiterate.”
Just two days ago David Cameron stood at the despatch box and stated that Royal Mail is now paying taxes as it is in the private sector. Er, so the taxes it paid whilst under public ownership don’t count?! I can’t think of anything more economically illiterate than that statement or, for that matter, the incompetence displayed in the sell-off of Royal Mail.
@ Geoffrey Payne: ” I struggle to think of any of them as moderate these days. I cannot think of any possible worthwhile reform that they intend to do in the next parliament that would make it worth going into Coalition with them again.”
I couldn’t agree more. Cameron has ditched one moderate ‘policy’ after another in a desperate effort to placate the swivel-eyed mob on his backbenches. At the same time, he has allowed certain Ministers in the key ministries such as Education and Welfare, free license to pursue the policies dreamed up by their think-tanks. For instance, placing two year olds in school-based nurseries to make them ‘school-ready.’ This outcome-driven obsession, (pushed relentlessly by Liz Truss), is toxic and if allowed, will undermine Sarah Teather’s excellent work in early years.
The Tories are no longer a moderate party – they are extreme and peppered with a few remaining, well-meaning individuals hanging on by their fingertips.
Any coalition with the Tories in 2015 will have to be on radically different terms from this current coalition. Sticking to the letter of the Coalition Agreement and not accepting extreme policies from the Tories afterwards, is absolutely the bottom-line.
A party that seeks to protect rights and take sensible measures to improve the economy need not remain in opposition.
Following the tories to the right is wrong both for the party and the country
The fracture on the right of British politics gives a significant opportunity to unite around a fiscally conservative but socially liberal banner: the same banner which is being flown by our presence in coalition.
This argument, which has long been made by right-wingers in our party, has now been tested to destruction. The sort of party Caspian Conran says we should be is now what most of the electorate sees us as. It has not won us over many votes, it has lost us lots of votes. It is clear there is no significant batch of voters out there wanting this sort of party.
However, it is my opinion that these voters have been lost, and will not be won back in the elections to come. How could we win them back? “Woops! Sorry, just had to do something completely different in government but now I’m back with you?” This logic is madness.
This is an argument that coalition does not work. You are saying that if we have to form a particular coalition due to the circumstances of the particular time, we must then be changed permanently to become more like the coalition partner and less like us. Would you be arguing that had a Labour-LibDem coalition been the only viable stable government in May 2010, we should become a more socialist party, drop any aspects of our policy that aren’t in accord with that, and force all those activists who don’t like this new direction to leave the party? Because that’s the exact equivalent of your line, it’s how the situation would have been had the Parliamentary balance been as in May 2010 apart from the numbers of Conservative and Labour MPs switched round.
I would also note that the we-must-move-to-the-right argument is made a lot in US politics by DINOs. It is made because those individuals already believe in right-wing nonsense policies, not because the Democrats would actually benefit from a shift to the right.
For any argument, one should consider the source. Would you really want to endorse any argument coming from David Cameron?
I hate the idea of giving up on Labour/left voters, personally I think our social democratic tradition is something to be proud of, but in the interests of objectivity I’ll ignore any ideological reasons and just talk strategy… in our many marginals with the Conservatives mobilising the left will be essential.
I don’t think we’re ‘blacklisted’ by any means. We have the potentially effective and so far underused line of “staying out of government would have led to a Conservative majority in the Autumn”. We have the income tax policy to trumpet. We have the pro-EU line. And those on the left, when push comes to shove, still dislike the Tories more than they dislike us.
But there is value to this article, which seems to be Clegg’s strategy. Without our moderating influence, and with UKIP’s influence, Cameron may not be able to contain that nutty right wing part of his party. We have to be in a position to take advantage of this.
Equidistance is valuable. And it has the additional benefit of putting us in the best position to get back into government in 2015 if a hung parliament arises.
So we could end up in a modern socially liberal and economically responsible grouping?
Am not sure what the problem there would be? Cameron and co, shorn of the Tory right (which can go to ukip and huff and puff into their pink gins for all I care), seem not to be the worst partners I could think of?
I do think that history will judge the coalition favourably – any disbenefits accrued by the LDs in office have been own goals and are our own fault.
3 short points, first I am sorry if I repeat points others have made, there are just too many long comments for me to read.
I dont beleive we should move to right or left to please other people, we should just carry on saying what we beleive. On balance. I think we were slightly to the right of Labour in 2010 after 3 Elections when we were to their left. It wasnt us who moved though. Let labour & Tories jump around, theres no need for us to follow.
On the facts, of course the Tories look divided compared to us but Labours divisions go even deeper. I beleive strongly that Labour will fracture first, quite possibly this summer.
Caspian Conrad wrote:
“However, it is my opinion that these voters have been lost, and will not be won back in the elections to come. How could we win them back? “Woops! Sorry, just had to do something completely different in government but now I’m back with you?” This logic is madness.”
So in your opinion the LibDems have no alternative, but to carry on supporting the right wing policies of the present government – or a slightly watered down version. I’m in my late 50’s and I honestly never though I would hear views like that from a young LibDem activist. Nick Clegg what have you done to this party? One quick stint in government and then back to all our MP’s fitting into a taxi cab, never mind you will no doubt become aTory minister in the next Tory government.
There does seem to be some confusion here. When I talk about capturing moderate conservatives I am not talking about the continuation of the current coalition indefinitely. Far from it. This is not an ideological shift but rather a pragmatic suggestion. We are not conservatives. However, we do have a favourable prospectus to a socially conscious yet economically competent Tory voter. All I was suggesting is that we will look more attractive as the conservatives shift rightwards, looking likely after a defeat in 2015, and therefore should be open minded to wooing these potential voters. This is especially true given 80% of our seats are tory facing. All im saying is we shouldn’t write off tory voters, thinking they would never vote for us. We don’t need to change ideologically , the tories are doing the changing, we just need to be ready to capture the fall out from a potential tory implosion.
Right, that does it. I am now joining the party just to prove my (broadly centre-left) vote has NOT been lost. You have lost my wife’s vote, however, but I’ll just have to work on her…
As respectfully as I can, I submit that this article is the biggest load of horse-droppings I have read on here in ages. As to splitting the Tories in two, well good luck to that, but I’ll believe that when I see Ken Clarke or Michael Heseltine cross the floors of the House of Commons /House of Lords. If they wouldn’t do it under IDS, why would they do it now? It’s as self delusional as all those Labour predictions that Chalres Kennedy was about to join them…
Caspian, thanks for the clarification.
I agree that there is a large constituency of voters out there who recognise Labour’s threats to the economy, and perhaps liberty, well enough to vote against Labour, and don’t perceive an embodiment of evil in the Conservatives that is so obvious to much of the left. There’s still quite a big challenge in communicating a strong pitch to these voters while maintaining a clear social conscience. It would have to be something like “building a stronger economy in a fairer society”.
Matt they didn’t do it under IDS because they thought if they got a compassionate conservative in the leadership they would win elections. They haven’t and they wont. What kept them in the Tories was the prospect of GGovernment. Now even that looks diminished.
From the post: “[changing our position means] we would have to abandon economic literacy”
I’m afraid Caspian has been taken in by the old fallacy that the Tory position is ‘economically literate’; it’s not. Rather it is motivated primarily by the self-interest of a few powerful individuals, the real power-brokers in the Conservative Party.
For instance ‘Help to Buy’ should really be called ‘Help to Sell’ and seen for what it really is that does nothing for first time buyers or anyone else except perhaps for the first few who bought before prices adjusted upwards. When Danny Alexander wrote a piece here on LDV puffing the policy there was hardly a single comment in support; most said it would just lead to another burst of house price inflation or made other trenchant criticisms. The subsequent property price bubble show the LDV commentariat was right and Osborne wrong (wrong at least in terms of his declared intention). Property developers are delighted as are the bankers who take the profit but not the risk on new mortgage lending.
Then there’s the larger Thatcherite project of market fundamentalism. That’s not exactly working out as promised either with soaring inequality, oligopolistic markets everywhere and a City run amok on speculative excess which remain unaddressed.
All this has been facilitated by junk economics which, to the eternal shame of liberals, has remained remarkably unchallenged – although that mercifully is changing.
Joe Otten- couldn’t agree more. Yes something like “stronger economy, in a fairer society” does have a nice ring to it 😉
@ Caspian: What kept them in the Tories was the prospect of Government. Now even that looks diminished
Caspian, we can have this conversation in 2015 and not before, and certainly not in any meaningful way at all before the forthcoming Euro elections. Up to 2015, I shall remain sceptical that you have a privileged insight into the minds of the leading moderate Tories that others don’t.
I want a party that will move political power down from the centre to the regions; within that overall framework I want a capitalist system within which state-owned, cooperative and charitable enterprises can all engage, without either the state or vested commercial interests deliberately or accidentally oppressing individuals who cannot defend themselves.
I believe voters from both left and right can find that programme attractive, and to say that the LibDem party is not interested anymore in making the left-ward leaning part of that offer is absolutely crazy.
Caspian, I was just about to comment when I found that GF had already said a key part of what I was going to say —
GF 4th Apr ’14 – 4:06pm
“…. I’m afraid Caspian has been taken in by the old fallacy that the Tory position is ‘economically literate’; it’s not. Rather it is motivated primarily by the self-interest of a few powerful individuals, the real power-brokers in the Conservative Party.”
Matt(Bristol) also has in mind something similar to me when he describes your original piece as “the biggest load of horse droppings”.
In fact I think Matt(Bristol) is probably being too polite.
Caspian, I am prepared to consider the idea that you are a Liberal. There is little that you have written here that would provide much evidence of that. Many commentators have reacted by suggesting that you are without principle and would like the party to do or say anything to get into power, or that excuse for power that has come with membership of this dreadful coalition dominated by another party who outwit our own useless party leader at every opportunity.
Bill le Breton points out that you seem to be at odds with the latest line of the party leadership as set out by Olly Grender on TV yesterday. You might want to consider that, or are you of the Jeremy Browne tendency, ie even further to the right than Clegg?
Given the various comments that your piece has generated you might want to re-consider if you are indeed a Liberal in the sense that anyone in the UK would have understood the term since around 1890.
This is a serious suggestion and not intended as an insult. If you conclude that you are in fact a Conservative there would be no shame in you joining the party that you might feel more at home in. Personally I would to recommend anybody join the Conservatives as I have seen what they do to people, but you may decide that is your natural home.
If having re-considered your own position and you still consider yourself a Liberal, you might want to consider why this strategy of capturing the so-called moderate Conservtives has not ŵorked at all since Clegg became leader more than seven years ago. After seven years of abject and repeated failure why do you think that one more heave might make it work now? Support under Clegg has dropped so significantly that it must be obvious that it is not just centre left and left voters that have left us but centre right voters and others as well. Clegg has not just lost the support of voters on the left, by reducing the party’s regular polling numbers to single figures! he has lost voters left, right and centre and has attracted nobody new.
I also agree with Matthew Huntbach’s very sensible and evident argument (not that I always agree with him) that the party would not in any way have wanted to tell right-leaning LDs to shove off and join the Tory party if it had gone into coalition with Labour in 2010.
Jennie
“Just because the press adhere to a binary model of politics informed by Duverger’s Law does NOT mean it is correct or true”
I agree.
Caspian Conran
I hardly know where to start there are so many worrying assumptions in the article. I would start if by “fiscally conservative” you mean “not fiscally incompetent” I think you have an over estimate of the term “conservative”
The most disturbing thing about your article is that it has me thinking of comments by Norman Tebbit to refute it.
To consider there to be a great deal of “left wing” or “right wing” voters is not really a fair description of the thinking of the majority of people. It is not far from branding them “Labour’s people” or “the Tories’ people” which assumes some form of ownership by political parties.
There are people who are highly motivated by a dislike of one party or other (I certainly know lots of anti-Tories and some anti-Labour) and there are some who vote almost according to tradition (we vote Labour in this family) but they are not the majority.
People express the surprise of Thatcher winning so many working class votes in her early campaigns, but there is nothing unusual about this. Which is where I come back to the Tebbit description, where he criticises Cameron is for focusing on the “Centre Ground” rather than the “Common Ground.”
The Centre Ground is where parties try and be as in offensive as possible to the largest number as possible, it is a split the difference approach. Trying to focus on be acceptable and relying on a binary perception in the majority of constituencies to force a dissatisfaction with the opposition to get yourself over the line.
The Common Ground strategy is one where all parties contain core values that carry importance with people but the level of priority varies over time. The party that can best articulate the reason its values are the most important for this time with enthuse the voters, the only way to do that is to have principals and clearly understand them and get the message out over and over.
You will need to also combine any strategy with the basic message of competence. Most voters won’t vote to put a party in power that they expect to destroy the economy, starts wars without purpose or looks like it is just interested in self-enrichment. But these are all hygiene factors, you need to look competent, sensible and honest but that alone won’t win it for you.
Your principles matter, and only if they mater to you can they matter to the voters.
Your strategy is not a winning one.
John Tilley- I think it’s fair to say that your comments are inflammatory beyond belief,. I have been very clear in my comments that this is no ideological shift and clear in my article that I hope to see the destruction of the Conservative party. Not as you say join it myself.
I was simply trying to draw your attention to the fact that I believe that there are liberals in both the major parties. Both have voters that in various stages of the electoral cycle we should aim to target. Given that we in the eyes of many abandoned our principles , I was suggesting that it would take time for those left leaning voters to come to come round. However there are liberally minded people in the Conservative party who could be won over. I personally favour a lib lab coalition in 2015 ( and hope to explain why in my next article ) I never suggested in the article that I thought we should abandon our left win vote or pursue a continued coalition with the tories. This is madness. I was simply addressing the pragmatic situation which is many on the left aren’t listening to us right now. That does not mean we should not embrace them when they are ready to be embraced.
You have interpreted a very pragmatic tactical electoral suggestion into some sort of ideological pitch to the right. I want no such thing. However I do not belive , as u seem to, that we can only win votes from the left. I am a centrist liberal who sees liberals in both the labour and the Tory parties. (After all these are conservatives in labour as much as the Tories.) Both of these groups should be targeted for the liberals they contain. However it just so happens that moderate left leaning Tories are easier for us to win over right now than those who abandoned us in 2010 after the decision to go in to government.
(If we were in gov with labour I would be urging us to woo the moderate liberal labour vote just the same)
Why on earth would we need to change our ideological pitch. Liberalism speaks to everyone. A change in tactics is what I was suggesting. Attack me for that please. But dont for something that I did not say nor mean.
“A change in tactics is what I was suggesting.”
Why can the libdems not put forward policies that can actually change the country for the better? Without that, tactics seems very hollow to me
Caspian,
That is interesting, I was thinking that what you wrote in your original piece was ” Inflammatory beyond belief “.
I suppose we could both be right on that score. I guess it depends on the belief in “beyond belief”.
Your response to my inflammatory comment is to my mind better than your original piece. By the comments of others I think you will acknowledge that I was not the only person who read your original piece with some dismay.
The English language is not always helpful, especially through the gauze of an on screen discussion. You and I may be understaanding very different things when we are using words like “Liberal”, “Thatcher”, “pragmatic”, “ideological pitch”. I am guessing that there is a considerable age difference between us which may add to the tendency to misunderstand each other. What is inflammatory to me is the suggestion that anyone who is a Liberal can think that after the last seven years of repeated failure there is any mileage left in Cleggite Centrism. Can you not see that it is killing the party?
You say that there are liberals in both the major parties. But I am sure you will acknowledge that the vast majority of others belong to no party at all. Out of a population of sixty something million there are probably less than a million who are members of all political parties added together. In elections since the year 2000 turnouts have been depressingly low – in most places local council election turnouts are well below fifty percent. Have you ever factored that into your strategic or tactical thinking. Why fight over a comb with two other balding men? If we promote Liberalism and persuade people of the merits of Liberalism we can work with people to take and use power. is that not a more positive, more honest and more hopeful approach than any amount of tactical game-playing?
You say that you intend to write another piece on why the Liberal Democrats should enter into an arrangement with the Labour Party after the next general election. It will be interesting to see your reasoning.
@ John Tilley: ” You say that there are liberals in both the major parties. But I am sure you will acknowledge that the vast majority of others belong to no party at all.”
Spot on. The real drive should be to find liberals outside of the parties who have either not thought that our party was for them (post 2010) or have never felt they could make a difference through politics. I used to think that there were liberals in Labour (the late Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam) but they are few and far between – a dwindling band. So-called liberals among the Cameroons are actually nothing of the sort. They’re economic liberals and pragmatically selective on social issues – to detoxify the brand.
Also, I fear that the Euro debates have simply reinforced the perception that Liberal Democrats have sold out to the establishment while Farage represents the insurgency. A great pity, though I still think Clegg was right to take him on.
John- I think there is truth to what you say about text being open to misunderstanding. I am the first to acknowledge that in hind sight greater provisos should have been put into the article . For example when I suggest that we are black listed to the left, I see how that could be seen as somehow suggesting that we should just give up on them. Of course that would be very silly. I also think the article came across as too long term ie suggesting that I was implying some sort of radical new direction for the party. In fact all I was suggesting was that in 2015 our suvuval in many seats may rest on wooing some liberally minded conservatives who broadly agree with the coalitions deficit reduction plan but don’t like Tory backbench rehetoric on a number of issues. ( as I say post 2015 I fully expect to us in gov with labour and will articulate why in my next article )
I have also just realised that I did. It again in my last comment to you by saying ” there are liberally minded people in the conservatives ” which should be won over. My apologies for this , i was not talking about party members but rather voters. I am clearly guilty of blocking people into partisan camps. However I still stand by the point which is that I think many people who aren’t particular enfatuated with the conservatives but see labour as disasterouse on the economy could be pursuaded our way if we expose Tory backbench ( in my opinion bigotry) to things like gay marriage or Europe or indeed their priority to raise the inheritance tax threshold to 1 million (madness)
As ever I do of course appreciate your comments . Clearly we are not going to agree on the tactic , and clearly I think it may be fair to say that we aren’t on the same wing of the party ( I take a more centrist view) . However I belive passionately in this party and it’s values. As well as recognising that the parties strength comes from its breth. Although I think there are many issues which bind this party together , whether they be civil liberties , progressive taxation , social mobility where I suggest you and I may well be in lock step. Thanks again 🙂
” If we promote Liberalism and persuade people of the merits of Liberalism”
Well, everyone has their own idea of what liberalism is. Some are economic liberals who see regulations as something to reject. If you stick to that line, you exclude people like me who think that banking reform must involve regulation in order to avoid a repeat of 2008.
When will the party speak out about the war on photographers? If LibDems do not tackle such things, what will attempts to promote really achieve?
Wow, what a brave article! I only had to read the first paragraph and look at the judge of the comment thread from the scroll bar to know that the author was going to get some stick.
I am one of those people that calls the tories “economically literate” by way of distinguishing them from labour. Likewise I am happy to see total Gov’t spending drop back below 40% of GDP, to maintain Defence spending above 2% of GDP, and euro-skeptic to boot.
And I totally disagree with the author!
First of all my thanks to Psi, for I too have a lot of time for Tebbit’s description of the difference between the center ground and the common ground. It seems very apt to mention when discussing where and how the lib-dem’s should position themselves most advantageously:
“The Centre Ground is where parties try and be as in offensive as possible to the largest number as possible, it is a split the difference approach. Trying to focus on be acceptable and relying on a binary perception in the majority of constituencies to force a dissatisfaction with the opposition to get yourself over the line.
The Common Ground strategy is one where all parties contain core values that carry importance with people but the level of priority varies over time. The party that can best articulate the reason its values are the most important for this time with enthuse the voters, the only way to do that is to have principals and clearly understand them and get the message out over and over.”
The tories are a flexible bunch, they have been in government with only brief pauses to give some other chap a turn for over 200 years now. When you consider that they are by definition supposed to be rigidly inflexible in accommodating change one can only wonder that they alone in british politics have successfully navigated centuries of non-stop tumultuous change without ever ceasing to be relevant to the needs of the moment as perceived by the electorate.
Maybe this adaptability can be explained by Lord Hailsham’s description of the party in that Conservatism is not an ideology at all to which adherence is demanded, rather it is a state of mind that see’s its role as not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly changing organic humane traditionalism.
To summarise, you have a long way to go before you convince me that the Tories are about to implode as an election winning machine, particularly if you should choose to suggest this while ignoring the johny-come-lately status of the labour party, or the broken reed that is the liberal movement!
So while I personally applaud every time the lib-dem’s do something sensible like taking less of my money to spend on windmill subsidies, I do not think that they party has a successful future couching itself under the umbrella of the centr-right.
No, the liberals faded when they ceased to best represent the pole of politics they sought to fight from, but there is nothing written in stone that labour should continue to occupy that pole.
labour 1915 = less than 7 million trade union members (pop 45m)
labour 1965 = more than 14 million trade union members (pop 55m)
labour 2015 = less than 7 million trade union members (pop 65m)
There still needs to be a political movement that represents those who value collective enablement to a greater degree than individual freedom, are labour best placed to provide that vision in the 21st century?
The decline of organised labour certainly seems to argue against the possibility.
So if you are looking for an historic opportunity to launch the liberals on a path back to prominence (and relevance), then look left my friend, look left.
Even if this does mean making choices that I profoundly disagree with. I’ll be happy either way, for in displacing labour the lib-dem’s will shift the center of gravity rightwards, and I will have a left wing that comes without the toxic chippiness and economic illiteracy I recognise in Labour.
Zerohedge (with Tyler Durden in full-on “we’re all doomed” mode) is covering The Independent’s front page story “Housing bubble worse than before the crash” which is from an interview with Vince Cable. Our housing bubble has become a global story. George Osborne has engineered that bubble for narrow electoral advantage. I have no idea what “fiscally conservative” means since the public purse largesse appears to be there if you look like “one of us”. But I know what “fiscally irresponsible” means and we as Liberals should want nothing to do with it.
@Crispian: that is a very well-worded and polite recontextualisation of your OP in your reply to John Tilley. I hereby apologies for being somewhat gratuitously rude.
I think I agree with you, then, that the task of the Party is to take votes off the Tories at the next election. I don’t know, however, if that can really be done by persuading Tory voters who agree with the Osborne economic strategy that they need to distance themselves from a rapidly toxifying Tory brand too associated with UKIP. There might be a 90s analogy here – people didn’t worry about the foaming at the mouth parts of the Tory Party when voting for Major in 1992 as much as they did in 1997, when Major’s claims on the economy had been proved false and the Eurosceptics had spent a good part of the last parliament causing as much chaos as possible. Cameron’s right wing is nont- in the public perception – as much out of control as Major’s was, and Cameron/Osbourne’s apparent grip on the economy is probably still sufficient to satisfy those who broadly approve of their direction of travel. I can’t see why these are convincing reasons for those who once voted Tory to vote Lib Dem. You need a genuine crisis that arrives from a previously unpredicted direction for your hopes of a Tory split to come true; and whilst the LibDems are in coalition with them, how is it going to blow voters our way without catching us in its grip?
@jedibeeftrix
“you have a long way to go before you convince me that the Tories are about to implode as an election winning machine”
First Conservative leader never to be PM: William Hague
Second Conservative leader never to be PM: Iain Duncan-Smith
Third Conservative leader never to be PM: Michael Howard
They haven’t won an election since 1992. They’re not likely to win in 2015. If they win in 2020 it’ll be for the first time in 28 years. Their pragmatism left them in the 90s when they decided to concentrate on endlessly debating ideology in the form of Europe.
Steve, in the interests of historical digression, I believe you have forgotten Austen Chamberlain. He should be used to it by now…
Oh, and Stafford Northcote could have reasonably expected to be Disraeli’s successor in the 1880s as leader in the Commons, but he had been Gladstone’s private secretary in a past life so the party chose it’s leader in the Lords as the next PM – Lord Salisbury. OK, I’m scraping the barrel here, so I’ll stop.
“Their pragmatism left them in the 90s when they decided to concentrate on endlessly debating ideology in the form of Europe.”
A bold statement Steve, to claim the end of a 200+ year cycle of perpetual adaptation to a changing world, a record no other UK party can claim!
This is your opportunity:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/02/tories-own-future-left-trapped-in-past
Would it really be so bizarre for a political party to agree on a set of principles it believed in, and then to campaign openly and honestly for those principles?
Does the party really have to follow the opposite approach of looking for a gap in the political ‘market’ somewhere (anywhere?) near its traditional position, and then adopting whatever poses are deemed necessary to fill that gap?
‘We must accept that we cannot, nor should we, out-compete Red Ed on the left. This is not just because we would have to abandon economic literacy, but also because it would be electorally futile. Our brand is now blacklisted on the left and it will take some time to change that, time we do not have for the elections ahead.’
Is this actually true? Does anyone outside of the political talkboards and the newspaper editorial room really have Ed M down as some sort of latter-day hard-left type? For that matter, is it really loony-lefty to question whether a fiscal consolidation protecting the two biggest budgets in the public sector might lack a certain literacy? And it is not just economics, take Syria – there were polls at the time that suggested that opposition to conflict in Syria was across all political-voting persuasions. Hardly 1980s style CND peaceniks.
I tend to agree with jedibeeftrix that there is absolutely space for a party that would promote some sort of, ‘collective enablement.’ Ed’s energy bill policy was something I was not convinced by, but his wider issue was essentially about corporatism. A sense that corporate interest is placed higher than the public interest. It might not always be a fair sense of course. However when you, for example, confront people with an immigration amnesty and open EU borders at a time of wage arbitrage then the public are going to question whose interests are being served. And they are well within their rights to ask that question.
The days of collective enablement in the sense of trade unions are probably gone forever. The question now seems to me to be about enablement against corporate power. It is not always of course easy the fracking we need for example will probably need some measure of corporate power.
Ed M is not some hard left sort and pretending he is is foolish. It is not the preserve of the 1980s style left to question corporatism. It is plain wrong to say that the LDP brand is blacklisted. In my 19 voting years I have voted at various times and in various places for candidates of all three main parties. It’s not about the brand, it’s about where the voters think you are headed. I, and many others out there, look forward to 2015 with an open mind. I’d just like something a bit less corporatist, rather than a brand positioning.
Well done Caspian for your piece. The scale and depth of response shows this is an important debate. I don’t share your linear vies of politics. However I do believe that splitting the Tories in 21st Century is as of as great avstrategic importance as was realigning Labour in the 20th Century. 100 years ago Liberalism descended into chaos as Europe did. We lost the ability to unite social and economic liberals. For reasons of personality politics our old Party was destroyed in the wake of WW1. It has taken 50 years from Grimmond to Clegg to see us being a Party of Government. The Tories are becoming an ever more “unholy alliance” of pragmatist and “little Englanders”. UKIP will own the latter ground. There is a huge political space for those who seek social justice, tolerance, enterprise, state fiscal prudence and internationalism. For too long we have allowed others to occupy this space without holding values that are true to it. The space is called Liberalism. It’s ours and at last we have a Leader with the courage to claim it as our own and bright people like you who see it as ours and will speak up and out to own it.
Caspian – interesting article with which I largely agree, especially as clarified in your very patient responses to some fairly rude posters! The short version I guess is that by remaining liberal , broadly in the centre, green, economically responsible and focused on fairness, we ought to be able to pick up support from folk who may have voted Tory before but are put off by their veering to the right on social issues, the environment and Europe. Of course we also want to appeal to folk who have voted Labour before but I think you are entirely right to say that right now, we are more likely to succeed with moderate Tories.
I hope the leadership are working hard to get a significant defector in the Commons or Lords as that would send a powerful signal. Maybe Nick could make Ken Clarke a Lib Dem peer?!
The thing is we don’t neatly fit the left/right model. Partly because the so called spectrum is an illusion.
Many of our principles are deeply rooted in freedoms that are also dear to the Conservatives but not understood or aspired to by Labour. Many of the people we want to support are also those whose interests Labour seek to further, but they go about it in ways that are anathema to any kind of liberalism.
If the Tories weren’t in thrall to toffs and if Labour actually cared about labourers, politics would be about philosophy and not about tax and cuts. And we’d be up with them in terms of numbers.
Mark
I will attempt to be polite rather than rude in responding to your last sentence — “Maybe Nick could make Ken Clarke a Lib Dem peer?!”
This is an example of shallow thinking and the belief that politics is about playing games in the Westminster Bubble.
There are not twenty million voters out there sitting on the edge of their seats just waiting for a sign from above like a Conservative signing up to Clegg’s centrist dream. Most voters do not even know who Ken Clarke is and of the small number who do it is just as likely that more of them would be put off the Liberal Democrats if he were to join. Clarke’s links to Big Tobacco and his personal role in marketting cigarettes to children in poor countries with no tradition of smoking marks him out as one of the worst sort of immoral capitalists. He is not a Liberal Democrat, he is not even a “moderate” Conservative. He is someone who was happy to work side by side as a minister in Thatcher’s governments, doing all those appalling things that Caspian described as making the Tory Brand Toxic. His voting record on key divisions were right-wing Thatcherite — it is there to see for anyone who wants to look beyond the spin. If we are to believe the press reports, it is the actions of Conservatives such as Ken Clarke that made David Laws join the Liberal Democrats.
It may be convenient for some people nowadays to pretend that Clarke is something other than a Thatcherite enemy of Liberalism but the evidence of what he has actually done, the way he has actually voted over the last forty years indicate that his views are anything but Liberal.
So Ken Clark working side by side with Thatcher in a right wing government shows how bad he is. What does that say about Clegg, Alexander, Laws etc working side by side with Cameron, Osborne, Smith etc. in a right wing goverment?
@malc: Ken Clarke wasn’t ‘working alongside Thatcher in the same way as Clegg et al. He was a fellow Tory and fully signed up member of the Thatcherite project. As I recall, he was a particularly unpopular Health Secretary, insulting the Doctors fairly routinely. However, in comparison to complete die-hards such as Cecil Parkinson, Nicholas Ridley, Lawson and Tebbit etc etc, he appeared to be more humane.
I think he has mellowed with age and he would have turned out to be an excellent Justice Secretary had he been allowed to continue.
Of course, the real weak spot for Clarke from a Tory perspective is his pro-European stance – this also makes him look cuddly from a Lib Dem viewpoint and compared with many others, he is someone who we can ‘work with’.
Five years ago the Lib Dems feared a wipe out at the GE………. just check back, remember those national & regional meetings, plans etc..to try and minimise the damage. If anyone had predicted then where the Lib Dems are now you would have had you committed!
A week is along time in politics, This is uncharted territory for the Lib Dems, but some things can be fairly taken to be true .
‘Its the economy stupid’, if people feel things are getting better & feel better off in their pockets the Tory & Lib Dems have the opportunity to cash in on this………. the Lib Dems MUST keep on message ……Income Tax cuts etc
Ukip’s vote may/will melt away – people are looking for someone/something to blame for the lack of jobs, low wages, lack of affordable housing………………. and of course they blame foreigners…….. the EU for these woes. Improved personal economic conditions will make this less an issue, although housing will be a tough one to crack in the short term.
Liberals by definition optimists ………there still all to play for especially under our perverse ‘First past the Post’ system for GEs – Its not how many votes you get……. its where you get them!!
To sum up ….. Anything could happen! Cheer up!
@ Greenfield “Five years ago the Lib Dems feared a wipe out at the GE” The Clegg experiment was failing even then and was only saved by a fluke of electoral arithmetic. I think it shows the success of those meetings that we only lost five seats net in 2010. Sadly we got five years of Nick as DPM as our punishment.
“@ Greenfield “Five years ago the Lib Dems feared a wipe out at the GE” The Clegg experiment was failing even then and was only saved by a fluke of electoral arithmetic. I think it shows the success of those meetings that we only lost five seats net in 2010. Sadly we got five years of Nick as DPM as our punishment.”
Ouch. Harsh, but true.
David….my point is anything can still happen…. a decrease in % votes & more MPs (as in 97) or increase in % & less MPS (2010 etc)…. Cheer up everyone….. now where’s my beer???
Greenfield:
“the Lib Dems MUST keep on message ……Income Tax cuts etc”
I’m always happy to pay less tax but I also appreciate good public services and adequate welfare payments for those in need. I realise that these things need paying for, but I like the idea of a strong health and education service . I don’t like the idea of Police, Ambulance and Fire Services being many miles away when I need them. I think it’s a good thing to provide proper child care for working mums and to look after our elderly and disabled. To me – and I hope some others – it’s not just about tax cuts. Also I don’t think it’s a good thing to bribe voters with tax cuts just before an election, not when the govenment has spent years telling us there is no money.
To be honest I suspect many Lib Dem voters – those that are left – now think more like you and Caspian. I – and I think a fair few other ex Lib Dems – will be hoping for a decent Independent to vote for – if not it’s the Labour party as the only realistic alternative. I could never vote for anyone that has been involved in such a right wing government. so in that respect Caspian is 100% right when he says of centre left ex Lib Dems:
“these voters have been lost, and will not be won back in the elections to come. How could we win them back? “Woops! Sorry, just had to do something completely different in government but now I’m back with you?”
In his original article it appears that Caspian Conrad wants to turn us into the libertarian party and wants us to give up our liberal philosophy. When he talks of social liberalism he doesn’t seem to mean having a concern for the social situation of people but rather about individual freedoms. When he talks of economic liberalism he should be aware it has never been part of liberal philosophy but was a way to improve the social wellbeing of people by removing the power of vested interests. He also seems to misunderstand that UKIP is a libertarian party and we would therefore be competing with them in this area.
Later he has stated he was not calling for some sort of radical new direction for the party but was just suggesting we should woo liberally minded conservatives (I am quite happy in wooing people who have voted Conservative ). However his definition of what he thinks is a liberal party was the problem.
Caspian also suggests that Conservatives who share these views will join us. This would only be a good thing if we wanted to turn into a libertarian party, but I do not. I have wondered before how we keep ourselves as a liberal party and not be taken over by new members with alternative views. Maybe I am wrong; we have already lost.
@ Trevor Stables – “We should be in no doubt that in the next few years the Party will be acting like a political life raft for many disillusioned left wing Tories …” but we shouldn’t because they are not liberals. A Conservative majority government (no matter how much I would hate it) might be the way our party can be saved for liberalism. Then they can have their referendum and if the British public vote to stay in the Conservative party can revert to type and accept the decision and those who can’t hopefully will join UKIP. This should ensure that libertarians join the Conservative party and leave ours, because libertarians believe in a small government and liberals do not, as liberalism has always been happy for the government to be expanded to cure other ills.
@ Frank Booth – “Most people in Britain are first and foremost concerned with economic issues” and we should be too, because people who are poor or unemployed can’t enjoy the same liberty as the well off. This is why we need to ensure that the minimum wage increases above inflation to get back to its pre-2008 real value and then be linked to the rise in earnings and we need to have a proper policy of full employment (not like George Osborne) of taking action until there is less than 3.5% of the working population unemployed.
Two important things.
1. Multi-Party ( no overall majority) politics does NOT require Coalition always.
2. Coalitions do NOT have to be set up and run in the manner that the current UK one has been – which involves too much horse-trading and bullying, too much bad hurried legislation and not enough seeking of consensus (including with ‘opposition’ parties).
Unfortunately, even with ‘notional’ fixed-term parliaments, a FPTP voting system always gives the largest Party in any coalition a route to bully the other participant(s) with the potential of a ‘propaganda coup’ General Election on the terms which are deemed likely to create an overall majority.
” Chris 4th Apr ’14 – 11:43pm
Would it really be so bizarre for a political party to agree on a set of principles it believed in, and then to campaign openly and honestly for those principles?
Does the party really have to follow the opposite approach of looking for a gap in the political ‘market’ somewhere (anywhere?) near its traditional position, and then adopting whatever poses are deemed necessary to fill that gap?”
I think there’s a gap between principles and presentation. The principles any party believes in are far too complex to fit concisely onto the left-right spectrum poltics tries to operate on, which means interpretation is involved and this is where we focus on our presentation. We’ve got our principles, if we present them one way we can portray ourselves on the centre or even centre right, but present the exact same principles another way and we can look to be centre-left or even as a left wing party given our positions on things such as drug decriminalisation or Trident.
I think that’s the discussion. And for what it’s worth there’s always going to be a mix between standing for our principles and standing for office.
@ Greenfield – Indeed anything may happen in the next 12 months. The only thing that will make any difference is for Nick to realise the disaster he is and resign, offering profuse apologies to the party and the country so we start to wipe the slate clean and rebuild. Sadly that is unlikely to happen with people just reaching for their beers. 🙁
@Greenfield :
“Five years ago the Lib Dems feared a wipe out at the GE”
I must have been in a different Party, then.
Locally, we may not have been sure that we were (as transpired) heading for our best GE result in all history but we were clearly moving forward and squeezing the Labour vote reasonably-effectively. As far as I could see, our leaders had promised us a big move towards doubling of seats and members and we were, as a national and regional Party, targeting more seat s than ever to potentially win. The range of eventual results, particularly incumbents against Conservatives, was higher than can be explained by random factors – but no one wanted to properly enquire into “why the difference.”
I HAVENT ANYTHING IN COMMON WITH LABOUR
The ‘one nation’ tradition within Toryism with its strong commitment to public services, social justice and civic institutions is well and truly dead – a few of that mindset still inhabit the green benches in the Lords or backwoods Tory Councils (who regularly complain about the severity of local govt cuts), but pretty much all Tory MPs are somewhere on a right-wing ‘small state’ spectrum and favour private sector management of just about everything, lower taxes, deregulation and minimalist welfare provision. Caspian’s piece admits as much is saying the even that even the so called ‘moderate tories’ now are very fiscally conservative (ie small state and anti-keynsian solutions to economic issues), and the only overlap is their ‘social liberalism’ – ie a younger tribe who have moved on from the social intolerance of the past towards BME, working immigrants and LGBT people that typified the thatcher era, and now embrace greater social diversity (although they still hate welfare claimants and single mums). Frankly the idea we should re-position our Party and its appeal as a less Etonian version of the current tory mainstream is laughable; Caspian clearly hasn’t read our constitutional preamble or a single motion passed by conference over the past decade – or taken note of a single election result or opinion Poll since 2010 which all show that right wing voters will either stick with the Tories or go to Ukip in protest, but certainly not lib dem.
i think we need to reflect on this “big state” / “small state” business, for i think we’d find it is not nearly as dramatic a difference as many imagine.
public spending has bumbled along the 40% of GDP line pretty consistently.
even the end of the broon era with a shrunken economy and spending propped up by the deficit it didn’t really go much higher.
even with the optimistic post coalition forecasts it would retreat to only 38% by 2018.
If this is so, Caspian, why are we still able to get Labour-leaning voters to vote tactically for us in preference to the Tories, both in local elections and in Eastleigh – where they can see we’re active and effective and the election is not winnable for Labour?
In the next election in most seats, you’re mainly right. But the political landscape changes quickly. Imagine, for example, a Labour majority government that lets down its supporters. Imagine Labour descending into feuding in the wake of defeat in 2015. Imagine, unfortunately, a YES vote in the Scottish referendum resulting in a big shift of surviving UK politics to the right, virtually forcing the elements to the left of the Tories to co-operate.
Finally, most of us didn’t enter politics with electoral calculation foremost in our minds, or we’d have joined Tories or Labour. To ignore electoral reality is irresponsible, but there comes a point at which to go with what seems most electorally advantageous so undermines what you were working for, that it’s a contradiction, even a betrayal, of what you believed in.
If the Liberal Democrats become permanently a party of the calculating centre, however libertarian, then after nearly fifty years, count me out.
Imagine a YES vote in the Scottish referendum resulting in a big shift of surviving UK politics to the right, virtually forcing the elements to the left of the Tories to co-operate.
Simon Banks
I have taken out the word “unfortunately” from your sentence. I thank it would be fantastic if the Scots took the sensible route of independence. The rest of us in RUK would owe them a huge debt of gratitude. it would be good for Scotland and good for the rest of us precisely because it would shake up the Westminster and Eton establishment.
The brigade of Labour MPs from Scotland has more often than not included some very socially conservative, illiberal types. The impact on politics in the RUK would be a temporary over representation of Tory MPs rather than a permanent shift to the right. A Tory majority in the UK Parliament without the fig leaf of this dreadful Coalition would soon crack under the weight of the fundamental differences between the Tory factions. This is I think one of the areas where Caspian and his elderly benefactor Gavin Grant are fundamentally ŵrong. There is an opportunity to split the Tories but not by propping them up and providing them with Liberal human shields.
Again John I take dispute “with propping them up”. I don’t think anyone is suggesting electoral pacts or coalitions with the Tories. Far from propping them up I want them destroyed. Destroyed by stealing their voters not their policies or values .
@ Caspian As pointed out above the Conservative Party has been the most successful British political party and it is only because of their divisions over Europe that they have failed to get back on track. There are lots of people in the UK who are conservative and wish there to be no change and share the values of the Conservative Party that want little change. If it didn’t exist then another party would have to appeal to these people, because we could never appeal to them and shouldn’t even consider it. It is impossible to steal a political party’s core voters without sharing lots of their values. Maybe this is why we failed to replace the Labour Party as the main opposition to the Conservatives in the 1980s. Liberalism and Labourism do not share the same values but can share some of the same policies.
I think I said that. 🙂
Is Jeremy Browne setting out a direction for the Lib Dems like that suggested in the article on this page? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10749902/Jeremy-Browne-Under-Nick-Clegg-weve-turned-timid.html)
The Telegraph article states, “His book details prescriptions that are unequivocally liberal, and would delight a Tory.” and the discussion thread below the article suggests Browne would be welcome in UKIP.
Is Browne the next Lib Dem leader or a future defector to the Conservatives?
@ Steve – “They haven’t won an election since 1992. They’re not likely to win in 2015. If they win in 2020 it’ll be for the first time in 28 years. Their pragmatism left them in the 90s when they decided to concentrate on endlessly debating ideology in the form of Europe.”
I think there is value in reviewing the assumptions of lib-dem debate from mid-coalition days, when looking to the future and what lib-dem ambitions for that future should be at a time when Labour is so visibly reduced as a potent electoral force.