The style of political campaigning today has become infinitely more professional than when I first became involved in politics. In the 1960s the news cycle was far slower and gentler; TV and radio interviewers treated politicians with respect, and would allow them to offer long answers without interruption. Now we have ‘breaking news’, daily opinion polls, multiple staff to advise and aggressive interviewers. Political leaders are far better equipped to follow the headlines and shifting public moods. But do they still dare to lead?
The UK’s debate on public spending represents a classic example of government and main opposition doing their utmost not to explain underlying choices to the public, while following conflicting evidence of popular preferences – lower taxes, higher public investment, resistance to cuts in health and welfare. Ever since Margaret Thatcher used the additional revenue streams from North Sea Oil and the proceeds of privatisation to fund current government spending rather than to build a sovereign wealth fund, Conservatives (like their Republican allies in the USA) have declared themselves the party of low taxation and a smaller state – without explaining to voters what cuts would be needed to reach those goals. Labour was so wary of challenging that myth that it pledged not to raise any of the largest sources of revenue if it won the 2024 election. The only party that has explicitly entered an election campaign with a pledge to increase taxes was Paddy Ashdown’s Liberal Democrats in 1997, with our ‘penny on income tax for education.’ A senior Labour adviser told me when we published our manifesto that ‘nobody will vote for a party that says it will increase taxation’ – though quite a few did.
Labour leaders knew very well before the 2024 campaign started that the rising number of pensioners is driving up the welfare and health budgets, that Tory cuts in public investment had left an urgent need to rebuild hospitals, schools, railways and roads, and that leaving the EU had damaged our economy and thus the Treasury’s revenue stream – by some £40 billion, according to think tank calculations. Facing the wrath of the right-wing media, the challenge of Reform and the Tories, they did not dare to explain the position to our uninformed electorate. On top of all that, we now face additional challenges: a downturn in the global economy and international trade, resulting from Trump’s disruptive tactics and spreading international conflicts and the unavoidable commitment to increase defence spending substantially. Keir Starmer has made very little effort, however, to explain to the British public the choices that we face: he’s not a natural political leader, more a manager.
“We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,” said Winston Churchill, defending the decision to retain the adversarial layout of the House of Commons during its post-World War II reconstruction. Looking at the way our political system functions today, it’s hard not to agree with him.
I’ve been a Returning Officer for the Party for a very long time, more than thirty years. My “patch” has generally been the South East of England, covering four of the Party’s Regions – London, South East England, South Central and the East of England. There was a time when I “had ballot box, will travel” but, for a variety of reasons, I’m not willing to take on too many these days. On the other hand, the modern processes don’t actually require me to leave my home office, so I can theoretically cover more territory.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Are there really people who do not think that climate change is real?!
Find the Lib Dems on Bluesky and Threads
"We have blue passports, but everything else has gone south": Andrew George on the failure of Brexit
Pontywood
George Thomas
Jana
Nick Baird
Dennis Delice
Rob Heale