There is an election approaching and, as ever, the British electorate will make a binary decision when it arrives at the ballot box.
But what decision will it be? This is something of a lateral thinking test, and the wrong answers include several schools: the Marxist ‘people vs. elite’ and the Old School Tie ‘posh anarchy vs. taxation’. Both views are simplistic and dated, but will inevitably dominate the debate.
Those taking a more modern approach will face a different choice – one between progression and decay. This is more difficult to qualify, but the nature of the main parties makes for a clear choice – Labour and the Conservatives on one side, the Liberals on the other.
This is not a rash delineation. It is the vastly different and advocative nature of the Liberal Democrats which places them, with consummate ease, onto an entirely different plane from their larger cousins. And it is this advocative heart which must be the focus of the thinking voters. It is a heart which is, frighteningly, missing from the two largest political parties in Britain.
The vindicative policies of Labour and the Conservatives depend on the strange phenomenon of ’swing’ votes. This is because both, at their most basic level, rely upon the most cynical form of syndicalism – a warped breed of in-club. These are parties who not only hold a demographic, but aspire to it. ‘Conservatives wear suits and protect the rich’, ‘Labour wear gingham shirts and house the poor’. Neither stereotype is entirely true, but the march of both parties is towards the benefit of a certain few.
This first point is massive because, more than anything else, it bogs down politics and breeds unsustainable policies. Luckily, few of these policies will be achieved – the inevitable swelling of dissent by those out of the current government demographic gives policy a nice deadline – ‘after all, it won’t matter after we’ve been voted out’.
And so with one hand, the Big Two shower their friends and familiars with cash or tax cuts, while with the other they quietly cut their own safety line, shoeing in the next government and giving us five, ten or fifteen year swing terms which stir up a sham political fury and, unsurprisingly, signify nothing.
This two party pendulum has turned some of the very exemplars of pragmatism – political U-turns and policy revisions – into bad things. Rather than congratulating our politicians for spotting errors and correcting them, we kick them in the ribs and scold them for not being brave enough to hold onto their shoddy policies, at least until we’ve had a chance to elect somebody else. As the only impetus for a change of government, we greedily expect bad policy. And do we get it? By the bucketload.
It is an elaborate dance, and is the very reason why the country is utterly fed up with politics. Not bored, but sick.
More and more, however, the game is becoming more obvious. The expenses scandal was a brilliant catalyst. For perhaps the first time, a scandal produced more than mudslinging and a snap back to normality; it came with a huge sigh of exasperation.
But what is the world-weary electorate to do? How can it get hold of a decent government – a practical one that doesn’t cost too much, runs well, needs little maintenance and is wonderfully sensible? How can we elect a VW Golf?
Thankfully, there is such an option. If they wish, the voters can go to the ballots and choose something patently different, something genuinely Liberal – an advocative and reliable party, who promise open representation, swear to steer us towards the current of reality and to adapt government to the modern world.
The time for tactical voting is over, and if the electorate has the balls, it can vote for the Liberal Democrats.
* Adam Gillett is a party member, Parliamentary researcher for Tom Brake, and member of the London Liberal Youth executive.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Alex Macfie
paul barker
Tom Walker
Neil Hickman
24 Comments
So you’re genuinely liberal? I’ll vote for you if you promise to throw open the borders. If not, you’re just the same and just as cynical as the other two.
Also, tell Cable to feck off. He’s got the blood of Nigerian protesters on his hands.
I’m actually in agreement with a LibDemVoice commentard – well, the first part. I’d rather see the corporation punished than Cable. Both are very unlikely to happen.
Really?
Um….
Nope, you’ve got me there.
We may be many things, but on a vast range of issues both social and economic (as if there was really a distinction except in the minds of deranged libertarians) we’re pretty far from genuinely Liberal and won’t be until we can either encourage more debate or get a stronger grip on party discipline.
Articles such as this certainly encourage me NOT to vote Lib Dem. Are you stuck in some sort of time warp? LOL – “Marxist people”, “posh anarchy”, “gingham shirts”, etc!
You need to get real and adopt some policies. What are they on energy/nuclear power, immigration (the posters on this site seem terribly confused), education/tuition fees, etc?. Above all else, what is happening about the expenses scandal and dodgy donations?
The reason why everybody should vote Lib Dem is very simple and it goes beyond detailed policy. Very simply you can vote for a party which has gone utterly of its trolley, and not in a funny way, or you can vote Lib Dem. We had 16 parties on our ballet paper in the European elections. 15 of them were downright nasty, authoritarian, warmongering, ragingly Europhobe and, let’s face it, just plain racist. The Lib Dems are the only choice left.
Lost LibDem, if it’s policies you want, http://libdems.org.uk/www.libdems.org.uk/policies/pocket-guide-to-policy.html is probably the best place to look…
big question for all you who want rid of this pathetic labour govenment.
vote lib dem,get brown.
the only way to get labour out is to vote for the tories,whose leader is mr cameron (liberal conservative),so your a winner on two fronts.
and mikeSC,(top of comments) are you a complete whack job,so you would let the whole world population to come here,’fool’.
‘You need to get real and adopt some policies. What are they on energy/nuclear power, immigration (the posters on this site seem terribly confused), education/tuition fees, etc?. Above all else, what is happening about the expenses scandal and dodgy donations?’
Just about sums it up.
-‘Savage cuts’ yes or no?
-‘mansion house tax’ yes or no?
-‘Tuition fess’ yes or no?
-‘Means tested cild benefits’ yes or no?
Repay £ 2 million to the victims of your jailed donor yes or no ?
Usually its the electorate that are confused in terms of what Lib Dems policies are, after the Lib Dems conference everyones confused.
“and mikeSC,(top of comments) are you a complete whack job,so you would let the whole world population to come here,’fool’”
In this I’m exactly the same kind of wackjob as Adam Smith. Do you think the whole world would want to come here? No, because as we get more populated, and as more people would compete for jobs, moving to Britain would be less appealing. This is a market that, with some tweaks of the welfare state, would self-regulate.
All this closed-border protectionism does is keep the pay of the first world higher than the market rate, and the pay of those in the third world lower. Freedom of movement is a pillar of the market system. If you don’t support it yet claim to be a free marketeer, you’re a hypocrite.
If you don’t support freedom of movement and claim to be concerned for the world’s less well off then you’re a liar. This would enrich the very poorest, not through government redistribution or anything like that, but by removing government interference. Now doesn’t that sound like a Liberals wet-dream come true? It should be- but you’re against it because this is government interference that *we*, the rich of the world, benefit from.
I wish you Tories in all three parties would decide- is government interference in the economy immoral or isn’t it? Because if you’re willing to allow massive government interference in people’s movement, just because it benefits you at their expense, then you haven’t got a leg to stand on when it comes to the forms of government intervention that would benefit others at your expense.
Read the Wealth of Nations. It is clear where Liberals should stand on this issue, and it is nowhere near where the Liberal Democrats are. Remove this blinkered, privileged view of capitalism our state protection has given.
You won’t, because the Lib Dems are not any different from the others. You don’t have principles any more than they.
No one votes Lib Dem because of detailed Lib Dem policies, people vote Lib Dem because they want to send a message to the world, and that message will most likely be along the lines of ‘I want to live in a more liberal/ progressive/ tolerant/ open society’.
Every single utterance from a front bencher or policy document that detracts from the clarity of that message gives the voter a reason to not vote Lib Dem.
iainm has said it best.
i’m also wary of turkeys voting for christmas eg why should I vote LibDem if it means I’ll get a pay cut? we can talk about immigration and we can talk about wages – ideology should never take us significantly backwards as a country. the government should actually be moving to ensure that workers in this country using our capital and other resources are paid the UK minimum wage and respect local bargaining agreements, otherwise our own skilled labour suffers and the quality of product decreases – and we all lose out. we are more educated and often harder working than the myth, we should be able to earn something fair in a free market, otherwise foreign workers are essentially being subsidised.
But for either local authorities (lib dem) or the government (lab/con) to mandate some kind of artificial cap? ridiculous. the best placed to know whether more labour is needed are the companies and migrants themselves. if they are being misled then we need to provide more accurate information to enable them not to be. and then we can dismantle the whole disastrous information state once and for all.
“otherwise foreign workers are essentially being subsidised.”
Are you that deluded? Opening up the market to those currently shut out by government micromanagement is not a subsidy. We are the recipients of the subsidy.
You claim to be a party that’s fundamentally different from the other two, but you’re not. You’re willing to disregard pillars of liberalism in order to win votes.
All you’re left with is a system with liberalism for the rich, and authoritarianism for the poor.
I think this is a ridiculous comment, because Labour long ago lost amy sorty of idea that it is aparty which particularly looks after the interests of the poor. We aren’t in the 1970s now.
It’s nice to see the Lib Dems doing well enough to attract trolls on a site like Lib Dem Voice. Spreading old FUD like “Vote Lib Dem, get Labour” like anybody can tell the difference between the Tories and Labour on just about any issue? It’s *so* 2005.
Just as well I’m spending time away from the keyboard and out on the streets, signing more and more people up to the Lib Dems because they want real change rather than spin from Blair and Cameron – if I were sat all day blatting my keyboard on Tory and Labour websites, I might lose sight of the real world!
Dave:
The problem is that in 2009 no one can tell the Lib Dems from the Tories or Labour either. Whatever distinctiveness the liberal ideology may have has been buried under a million inconsistent and incoherent policies that are explicitly designed not to be liberal, but to appeal to whichever target demographic is most electorally advantageous that week.
And I hate to break it to you, but you see all those people you have signed up this week? They’re irrelevant. They make absolutely zero difference to the prospects of the party ever gaining the power to implement its policies. Zero. In the big scheme of things you literally may as well have not bothered.
MikeSC,
you ask an important question about ‘interference’, however you’ve couched it in a term that shows you’ve already reached a conclusion and that you’re unlikely to brook any discussion.
But let me try quickly.
Intervention/interference can be either good or bad, depending on the manner in which it is done and the purposes to which it is put. I tend to be sceptical on principle about promised benefits because there are always hidden costs, but I am also realistic about the necessity to act. So I oppose taking an absolutist stance and recognise there will always be exceptions to the rule which require careful calculation.
There are always pros and cons to taking action, as nothing is completely neutral, so in the end it comes down to making a balanced decision.
I agree that many interventions made by this and previous governments have been ham-fisted, counterproductive and have set dangerous precedents, but the price of progress is to reject the status quo. We can’t unmake the present and I doubt you want to repeat the mistakes of the past, so the only remaining alternative is to look for something different, fresh and new which doesn’t create any hostages to fortune.
I won’t argue that the LibDems are perfect by any means, but we are the only option which comes close to filling all the criteria. Our relative merits far outweigh any negatives and we are the only credible political force as an alternative to the establishment two.
If you wish to take part in any process which helps us improve and you are capable of making a reasoned argument which stands up to scrutiny or introducing new facts we are open to all constructive contributions – indeed we welcome and encourage them because we get positively excited by the possibilities!
The same cannot be said for any other party because they all exist to support particular vested interests, which by their very nature makes them exclusive.
Iainm,
The differences between each of the parties are there to be found if you are prepared to look at any voting record.
If you’re looking for an ideology to act as a shorthand for detailed policies then you are bound to be disappointed – it seems you think political philosophy is prescriptive dogma which requires specific outcomes, yet I couldn’t disagree more.
Liberalism appeals to everyone to greater or lesser extents, so to make slanderous accusations of cynicism not only misses the point, but it also says a huge amount about you.
I shall also point out that your sweeping statement that LibDem policy is irrelevant because we will never gain power is contradicted by the facts. We are winning more elections, we control more councils than ever before and our arguments have been decisive in many instances even where we aren’t in power.
You may not like to hear this, but we are far from irrelevant as the level of our support and success attests. It won’t happen overnight, but I am involved because I am determined that the LibDems will form a government within my lifetime – I’m bored and angry with the same old, same old Labour-Conservative back-and-forth and I’m prepared to stick my oar in to change our direction.
What are you prepared to do?
The thing is, Iainm, that people can tell the difference between the Liberal Democrats and Tories / Labour. They know where we stand on issues – they know we want to decrease the income tax burden on the poor, that we want to scrap ID cards and put more police on the streets, that we want community sentences which reduce reoffending rather than jail time that increases it. They know that we’re green, and that we’re serious about making politics fairer and making their vote count more.
I’m in a marginal Lib Dem / Labour seat. Everybody I’m signing up increases our chances of having one more MP at the next General Election. That means one more vote for liberal politics in the Commons, and that’s more power for the Liberal Democrats.
I’d say more, but I’m off to spend the day canvassing in a target ward with my friends. Nice weather for it too!
LostLibDem: Articles such as this certainly encourage me NOT to vote Lib Dem. Are you stuck in some sort of time warp? LOL – “Marxist people”, “posh anarchy”, “gingham shirts”, etc!
Unfortunately all of these stereotypes are currently stronger than ever. The huge increase in youth activism and youth involvement – particularly in the Tories – has mutated into something of an extreme fashion code, both in ideologym and, oddly, clothing. It creates a striking image, and image counts more than ever before.
I’ve met most of the national campaign teams, and I know few Conservative Future members who would be seen dead at an event not sporting a Double Windsor, and I’ve met no more than two young Labour activists/researchers/interns/bods who were not wearing some sort of check shirt/v-neck tshirt and cardigan combination. It’s truly bizarre, and I think there is some significance behind it, meant or otherwise – if your members wear a uniform – either that of 70s-80s Socialism or some sort of used-car-salesman privilege, then the image you send to the public is bound to be one of exclusivity, an elite. If you speak to them, you will realise that the syndicalist arguments are as strong as they ever were. Amongst the young campaigners, Old Labour is alive and very well, and Thatcher is looking surprisingly sprightly.
By contrast, Liberal Democrats can be surprisingly difficult to spot. I took a group of around 50 other politically active students to a pub in Fitzrovia. One attendee, upon finding us in the corner, said ‘I didn’t realise you were Lib Dems. You don’t look like Lib Dems.’ While this may speak more about our inability to stand out, I think there is a greater significance. We ARE a very mixed bunch, in views, backgrounds, creeds and all. And we produce strong (if somewhat unromantic) policy because of it. But it is complicated, and often very boring, because reality and realistic policy often are. It’s not perfect, by any means, but it is largely responsive and pragmatic.
This may seem a tediously long and pointless appendix, but these activists, silly and young and misguided as they may later see themselves, should not be ignored. They deliver and canvass en masse, and they win elections. Sue Kramer is under threat at the moment, not because of Zac Goldsmith, but because of his ability to summon 220 Conservative Future campaigners in a single weekend. It is important to recognise the oddity of uniformity and the one-sided policy that fills the two main youth parties, if only so that we can counteract the loudest members of the two largest parties, the ones who most of the public see on their doorstep.
P.S. It wasn’t mentioned here, but this was actually a post targeted at London Youth Lib Dems, hence the rather polemical feel and the somewhat oblique references to the youth activist stereotypes.
dave page,so you signing more people up to the lib dems because they want real change not the spin of cameron.
What f*cking deluded bull,which leaders lied on giving the british people a referendum on lisbon treaty,yes it was mr clegg,spin,spin,spin is what the illiberals gave us.
I also will say the lib dems playing politics on afghanistan is a disgrace,we all know what the lib dems are up to,by the next GE ,the lib dems will have a policy of withdraw.
This is when you lib dems fully supported our mission to afghanistan but all of a sudden you want a pull out,you would think a GE was on it’s way.
So dave mate,what you telling these people to sign up to the lib dems,more spin and lies ,tell you what ,you would be good in the labour party.
‘The problem is that in 2009 no one can tell the Lib Dems from the Tories or Labour either’
I think beards,sandals & jumble sale dress code is quite distinctive.
Iaianm
And I hate to break it to you, but you see all those people you have signed up this week? They’re irrelevant. They make absolutely zero difference to the prospects of the party ever gaining the power to implement its policies. Zero. In the big scheme of things you literally may as well have not bothered.
Another clueless idiot who hasn’t seen how theLiberal Democrats have grown from nowhere to exercising power and winning Parliamentary seats in many places due to the hard work of local activists.
@ Huntbach, and the rest of the delusional circle-jerkers.
If all the Lib Dems aspire to is to continue to exist in a petty little political niche with the power to enact policies on dog shit and parking fines then maybe you can argue that they’re making progress, or even that they’ve attained some level of success, but if they aspire to be a credible political force with a prospect of ever forming a government and creating the society they espouse then, sorry and all that, but they’re as far away now as they have been for the last century, and if the party continues to be dominated by timid, navel-gazing lightweights more interested in maintaining the illusion of influence than actually earning it, and who’d rather waste energy back-fitting liberal justifications to an incoherent raft of electorally opportunistic policies rather than having the guts to advocate a real and honest vision of a liberal society that might actually allow the party to build up the head of steam necessary to break out of that niche, then I’d bet my right bollock they’ll be in exactly the same situation after another century.
Iainm, don’t forget to breathe!
Breathing’s overrated…
What do you want ianm?
Truly?
You’ve woken up and you have a choice to dream of how you want the world to be for you, your parents, your family/partner, your neighbours, the post man, the disabled fella down the working man’s club, your plumber, the woman suffering from domestic abuse, the soldier who is addled with mental health after being Iraq..etc etc..
What would it be like?
Are you saying ANYONE that is a Lib Dem, should give up. That it’s not worth caring for anyything. Belief is overrated and they should join another group-? Labour or The Tories who have done an incredible job in governing this country for the past decades?
You feel the Lib Dems should have never started. Never fought the system that they disagreed with?
If this had happened. How would UK society be now? (Please read back to historical situations involving WHY the partt started at the first place and the activist work it has done to change policies in the UK)
I’m guessing you don’t live in an eco-system. You don’t see the use of slugs in the garden as much as you don’t see the use of architects. Fair enough.