Campaigning alongside a Lib Dem councillor recently, I mentioned the several recent high profile defections of Blairites to the Conservatives. I was a little disappointed they’d felt that the obvious choice was to go to the Blues.
People that liked Tony Blair more than they liked the Labour brand in general are precisely the kind of people that handed the party thirteen years of office. Their exodus from Labour, a backlash fuelled by the anti-New Labour revolution that put Ed Miliband in power, was a sign that the party was letting an election victory slip out of its sights.
To my surprise, the councillor that I was speaking to disagreed that we should be the natural home for Blairites. Of course, most Labour supporters wouldn’t really fit into our party, but we should still be extending a hand to those that feel Labour no longer offers a vision they can relate to.
In the century since the Liberals were an election-winning force nationally, we’ve lost many of our strains of thought, much to Labour and much to the Conservatives. If we are to build on our success in Government, we must attract people back.
A Lib Dem that had defected
from the Conservatives told me recently “I’d always been a liberal Conservative, now I’m a conservative Liberal”. Many One Nation Tories may find themselves in a similar position to Blairites. I saw recently how frosty a reception people like Ken Clarke get from typical Thatcherite Tory activists. They don’t believe those types belong in their party. Much of the left of the Tory party evolved from those Liberals that historically chose ever closer co-operation with the Conservatives. Michael Heseltine fought his first election as a National Liberal, by the time he got elected, the party had merged with the Conservatives.
By 2012, pro-European Conservatives have been reduced to an obscure fringe, Cameron’s leadership distracting from the real right wing nature of its grassroots, most of which will remember little of the pre-Thatcher party.
Many Liberal Democrats reading this may well think ‘But One Nation Tories aren’t Liberals and nor are Blairites!’. That’s a fair point but it’s only through widening our membership that we can become a better party than we are currently.
There’s been a disturbing trend of members advocating ideological purity recently, a slow reaction to the accusation that our typically centre-left party has been hijacked by a gang of centre-right ‘Orange Bookers’. That’s nonsense but that won’t stop people towards the right of the party calling themselves ‘real liberals’ and those on the left ‘the mainstream’.
It gets more ludicrous by the day with new factions left, right and centre. To mature as a party, we need to hold on to our ability to work positively with people with similar but different views. If that means taking on people that we have historically fought against in elections, I say that we should be prepared to welcome them.
Otherwise, we risk conceding the lion’s share of the centre ground to the Conservatives.
* Rich Clare is president of Sheffield Hallam University Lib Dems and writes on the blog 'A brief history of liberty'. He is standing for England Convenor in the Liberal Youth elections.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST The state of our canals - and riverside pubs - today
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Suzanne Fletcher
Greg Hyde
David Raw
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
23 Comments
Sensible until the last few paragraphs, when it gets paranoid and shrill. Though the last paragraph (and the end of the penultimate one) pull it back on message a bit.
I think there’s cause and effect confusion here. We shouldn’t seek to attract people to join the party who don’t agree with our fundamental values and philosophies. However, we should be making more effort to demonstrate how our values reflect other peoples’ concerns and how they’re better off becoming part of the Lib Dem family to address those concerns.
That may be what the author was intending, that the people who followed Blair despite not supporting Labour did so because of the vision he advocated, but it reads more that we should get as many people to join the party as possible regardless of their politics, and we’ll be better for it. Without getting into arguments about who is and isn’t welcome in the party and which of the new party factions should be ejected (apart from all of them), that recognition of core values is essential to the structure around which our broad church can democratically debate party policy.
In the ideal world of plural politics there would be 5 or 6 major parties fighting in every constituency, instituting a more cooperative and fluid framework for government to finally end the days of callow, shallow, hollow and opportunist oppositionalism.
Instinctively this would lead to the establishment of a new National Liberal party and a vibrant Social Democratic party which offer vocal and meaningful contributions to the public debate rather than spreading disillusion and disenchantment, the result of obscure and often academic internal in-fighting based on dogma – thereby drawing away from the shrill extremism lurking in every corner of society.
Then diverse forms of coalition would be presented as positive options, instead of the only or least-worst of a bad bunch. It would also reinvigorate the democratic spirit of the country and reverse the trend of slipping turnout.
In the meantime I have my concerns about entryists unbalancing our policy choices, though nevertheless I’d welcome all people who see active social engagement to join the LibDems, as the only party where members set the tone.
“… If that means taking on people that we have historically fought against in elections, I say that we should be prepared to welcome them.”
The problem with try self-consciously to be a centrist party is that in the attempt to be inclusive you will find yourself trying to include or incorporate views and policies which you find aborrhent. Centrism has been shown up for the logical and political absurdity that it is. As for why former Blairites went straight across to the Tories, not us, well, doesnt that say something revealing about Blairism?
Hey Dave. I’d like to clarify that I don’t think the recent factionalisation is by definition a bad thing and certainly support all their rights to make their point within the party. I think that my point is broadly as you say but I do believe that we should widen our core values, not to take in people opposed to what we currently believe but to expand. Decades of opposition have, in my view, narrowed our church.
And yes, Oranjepan, I do believe that under a fair and proportional political system, widening one’s church would not be necessary. But under our current antiquated system, a party can only assume power by building up groups that support it. I think that both the Conservatives and Labour have more variety within their parties and, despite occasional chaos and in-fighting, are in the long term more healthy parties for it.
“but I do believe that we should widen our core values”
This doesn’t make sense.
I fully agree that we should try and widen our appeal to more of the people who share our values, but I don’t see that we can or should widen those values themselves.
Personally I’m not sure that ‘Blairites’ as such are a key group for us. So much of ‘Blairism’ was the antithesis of liberalism, as demonstrated by the fact that he led us into Iraq on the basis of a lie. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to attract some of the people who have been disaffected by Labour over the last two decades.
@Rich
I think you need to increase your time horizon a bit, as I don’t think many people who have memories of the party in the longer term would agree with your comment “Decades of opposition have, in my view, narrowed our church.” Compared to the 1950s and 60s we are much, much wider with involvement from urban areas with Social Democrats key in this. The thing that has narrowed our church is more likely to be losses in urban areas over the last year or so. If I had to choose between “Blairites and One Nation Tories” from the Home Counties or Social Democrats in the Urban areas, I know who I would choose.
Perha
David, I, perhaps wrongly, used ‘Blairites’ to refer to non-socialist Labour supporters, I’d put a lot of social democrats in the same category.
You should not read anything into the fact that Michael Heseltine fought his first election as a National Liberal; it was simply a historical accident in a seat for which he, as a Conservative, was chosen as the candidate.
It’s a historical fact that livery elements that departed both left and right in the interests of power and pragmatism. There is no shame in encouraging those elements return home.
If the Lib Dems are ever to gain a parliamentary majority in this country then they will have to appeal to both Blairites and One Nation Tories. These groups should be top of the list for Lib Dems hoping to expand their party and its appeal to both conservative Liberals and liberal Social Democrats.
Lib Dems shouldn’t be happy with winning 20-25% of the vote and having no ambition but being some permanent minor partner in endless coalitions. The Lib Dems don’t need PR (as much as they may believe it to be a better system). Liberalism and Liberals can win parliamentary majorities under FPTP and Lib Dems should be aiming for nothing less.
Yes that might involve making some compromises with the electorate. But Liberal democrats of all people should not be sneering at the idea of advancing popular policies but should be considering really seriously that if the people really want something then perhaps they should be listened to, or at least their fears and considerations seriously taken into account rather than just sneeringly dismissed.
People shouldn’t confuse Blairites, the political clique that dominate the very top of the labour party, with blairites in general, those centrist voters who probably voted Conservative or Alliance 1979-1992 but then stuck with Labour through to 2005 before abandoning it in droves in 2010,
I think some of you guys miss Richard’s point. We are a party of, according to Wikipedia, about 65,000. The Labour party is listed as being about 200,000, the Tories are thought to be more.
Those figures are probably all overstated, but nonetheless the fact is, we’ve a lot fewer members.
In order for us to challenge the two party duopoly, we need to be bigger, both in membership and voting strength.
I’m sure RIchard isn’t arguing that we should become authoritarian war-mongers, but there are a lot of people who are neither authoritarian nor warmongers. They are people who could join the Lib Dems, who could vote for us, but for some reason they don’t.
If, as Stephen W points out, we are happy with a maximum of about 20-25% of the vote, a small parliamentary party, and only able to put our ideas into government once in a blue moon in coalition with one of the other two, then fine.
But if we want to raise that to 30-35% of the vote, and have a shot at majority government, then we need to think hard about how to widen our appeal. Is it because of the inherent advantages that the two big parties have, of money, and the support of a class base? Or maybe there are things we aren’t doing that we could do, to draw in a wider range of supporters.
To get big, we need to attract most of the electroate,
Most of the electorate are not rabid Blairites or rabid One-Nation Tories.
I’m trying to connect the dots
“Most of the electorate are not rabid Blairites or rabid One-Nation Tories.”
And as Rich’s post doesn’t use the word “rabid” or anything that could be paraphrased as that, I don’t see the relevance of this comment to the debate. Nobody’s suggesting trying to attract rabid anything. (I’m pretty suspicious of rabid liberals, come to that.)
And of course “Most of the electorate are not X” will always be true, so long as “X” doesn’t represent “human”, “adult” or “British”. The point (I think) is to pull in people who don’t all think exactly the same or identify as the same group, but who may be attracted by the positions our party adopts, if they are presented in the right way.
Interesting and welcome discussion here, in that we are all looking in the same direction for once! Such wisdom from Richard Clare, I hope you go on to greater more influential things. I also hope that within our Parliamentary Party we have work going on to persuade members of other Parties to defect to us, – a couple of defections, one from each side, would be a most powerful message to the voting public (media permitting).
Getting bigger is, of course, a great idea. The problem lies in its execution!
It is a moot point whether you do better to blur and broaden your appeal with an all-things-to-all-men approach, or to sharpen up a message which might deter some but attract others.
It’s a highly moot point as to whether migrating across the political stage from one side to the other is a great idea. We could, of course, decide that Ed Miliband’s weakness presents us with a key tactical opportunity, and that we could pick up a lot of soft left support by emphasising things like our social democrat heritage and our commitments to fairness, justice, and a more equitable world. Now, what makes me think that the author of this posting might be surprisingly resistant to our growing by taking on that kind of supporter?
We had this discussion about a month ago, I don’t know why we are coming back to it.
The most noticable characteristic of “Blairism” was that it was anti-liberal. Consider the attacks on civil liberties, international law, the top down marketisation of public services, the cosy relationship with Rupert Murdoch. So why on earth do we want to recruit these people?
Yes, Labour have a lot more members and supporters – and even more now that Blair has gone. I always thought that only a few Labour members were true believers.
The people who were marginalised by Blair in Labour were in fact the social liberals. People like the former Labour MP for Hackney, Brian Sedgemore who were passionate about civil liberties and who in his case defected to us during the 2005 general election.
In the end Blairism failed, Labour suffered a terrible defeat at the last general election. Blairism ought to be a dead creed by now.
I very much appreciate the critique, guys. In regard to David Allen’s comment, I’d be absolutely delighted to see centre-left social democrat types coming to our party, indeed, I think it would be necessary. I think the days are gone that many voters will see us as being to the left of Labour on a conventional spectrum, though.
“Many Liberal Democrats reading this may well think ‘But One Nation Tories aren’t Liberals and nor are Blairites!’. That’s a fair point but it’s only through widening our membership that we can become a better party than we are currently.”
An excellent article.
If the Lib-Dems are to be a successful political party within an adversarial system they need to seek a broad and uncontentious mandate from around the kingdom, not just be a collection of jarring ideological wedges in sectors of society not sated by the big two.
Geoffrey Payne
The most noticable characteristic of “Blairism” was that it was anti-liberal. Consider the attacks on civil liberties, international law, the top down marketisation of public services, the cosy relationship with Rupert Murdoch. So why on earth do we want to recruit these people?
Indeed. In some ways I have found Blairites the hardest people of the lot to work with when it comes to working with people of different political opinions. It’s because they assume they are similar to us, and yet that assumption comes from having such a lack of understanding of liberalism and democracy that they can’t see the barriers. With its cult of the leader, its basis on The Party, its obsession with being “modern”, its mixed-market economy involving cosying up to the big business leaders and tight regulations imposed on the public sector, Blairism is to me half way to the political movement that first came to prominence in 1920s Italy. I’ve always found “One Nation” Conservatives and centre-left Labour Party people much more on my wavelength than “Blairites”.
Excellent article. On Blairism, if Labour had lost in 2001 would Blairism be the swearword it is now ? The first Term did some good things, it was after that that things went so badly wrong.
I strongly feel we lack confidence & ambition. I want to see us replacing Labour as 2nd Party in 2015 & I believe thats entirely possible. That will inevitably mean defections to us & some of them will be people we dont trust or like. We should treat all “conversions” as genuine until they prove otherwise. Big hugs all round.
Hi,
This article is quite helpful. I am one of those people that are stuck in the middle. I describe myself as a Post-Keynesian, and a conservative liberal. So by default I’m a social democrat I suppose, and I am contemplating joining the Libdems but I’m not sure it is indeed apt for me.
I don’t want to join Labour, because some of the groups are far too left wing, and the Tories have their dreadful Thatcherism to which I am not keen in the slightest. I don’t intend to feel juxtaposed within such parties. I know the Libdems are liberal, and I can tolerate civil libertarianism quite well, it’s the economics of the other two that can make me cringe.