Why does poisonous politics keep winning in Britain? A glance down your newsfeed will tell you that, for many, it’s because people are stupid. Let me put this plainly: it’s not.
We all vote with our hearts, however much we may protest otherwise. Brains too rarely come into it, clever or otherwise.
The voters who take solace in the myth of us vs them are just people who feel afraid. People who feel disenfranchised, powerless, ignored. And until we can offer them anything that speaks to their concerns, nothing is going to change.
I believe liberalism is the answer. But saying liberal things in our little liberal bubble will only serve to unite us against them in disbelief. Instead we have to engage: we have to try to understand.
Liberalism is about trusting people. So if you trust people, what are you forced to conclude? That politics has failed us. That society has failed us.
Don’t hate the people that Vote Leave manipulated: find a way of bringing them back into the fold.
Don’t deplore people for being swung by xenophobia: work out what better we have to offer them.
Don’t focus on the straws people clutch at. Give them a hand and help pull them up.
This isn’t about winning Leavers over: many may never vote Lib Dem (and some already do). This is about curing the sickness in our society. This is about convincing the despairing minority that there is a better way. This is about setting the tone. This is about not resting until we know how to win.
Unless we respect the people who’re swayed by poisonous politics, we will never truly understand them. And until we understand them, division and fear will continue to win – time and time again.
* Jim Williams is the founder of Your Liberal Britain
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
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
expats
15 Comments
Well said Jim
Hate the sin/love the sinner? Many miillions who voted last Thursday did so for poorly thought out reasons that don’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny. ‘Twas ever thus and there’s little point complaining about it. In fact it’s massively counterproductive to complain about it if you want those people ever to rally to your cause.
Right wing populism is on tbe march in a way I haven’t seen since the early 1980s. It can be halted, it can be reversed. Those on the progressive side of politics must not treat those who disagree with us with contempt but nor must we accept a narrow “little Englander” agenda.
If the referendum was a 1979-like shift in British politics I fear tbe coming election with be a 1983-like landslide for the nastier side of Toryism.
With Labour in disarray it’s time the Lib Dems stepped forward with a coherent alturnative view that appeals to heart and head.
The people have spoken but I believe that the process of leaving should not be invoked until parliament has voted to start the procedure. Has anyone any idea how an e petition can be raised to demand this?
This appears to be the 17th “wadda we going to do?” article in a row from a white man. Are there any other views?
Good article.
We have to start by getting some of people who feel left behind into the House of Commons. You never know, some of them might even be former Lib Dems!
BBC RADIO FIVE PHONE IN TODAY “Buyer’s remorse” on the BBC News website..
Leave voter: ‘I didn’t understand the ramifications’
A woman who voted to leave the European Union has admitted she “never thought it would happen”. Barbara from the West Midlands has said she did not “understand the ramifications” that a Leave vote could cause.
Speaking to 5 live’s Nicky Campbell, Barbara said she had voted Leave as a protest but it was “too late” to change her mind when she learnt what “could happen”.
This clip is originally from 5 live’s Your Call on June 26 2016.
Release date: 26 June 2016
Duration:
2 minutes
The result shows that negative campaigning works. The Leave campaign majored on people’s fears of immigration and successfully frightened people into voting for Brexit. Daniel Hannan’s admission that immigration will not decrease, when he was questioned after the vote, reveals that Vote Leave operated on a fraudulent prospectus.
The SNP leader was interviewed on the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 on 26/6/2016.
She often speaks with great clarity, despite the controversy. She did use one ambiguous word which is “prepared”. The SNP cabinet met on 25/6/2016 in a very uncertain situation, so she is unprepared. She is also unwilling to take certain actions. In the interests of clarity she should distinguish between the two.
She is doubtless aware that her predecessor signed an agreement with the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, permitting a referendum on Scottish independence. She is clearly opposed to a future PM vetoing another referendum on Scottish independence and states, probably correctly, that the population in Scotland would also be opposed to a veto from London. In the process she has given a hint about the timing, a Tory leadership election would be quicker than legislation at Holyrood.
A question not even asked would be about UK citizens applying for Scottish citizenship, which is different from where people register to vote.
The parallels with Northern Ireland are not exact, that situation is more complicated. Scotland’s decisions are only partially dependent on what happens in Ireland, north and south.
The Irish PM (Fine Gael) has said that Ireland will remain within the EU because it is in Ireland’s interests to do so. It does not follow that the Republic would want to take on the financial cost of Northern Ireland to the UK exchequer.
@Laurence Cox
“The result shows that negative campaigning works.”
Are you sure about that? After all, remain tried fear by the bucket load. Some one on another thread kindly provided the link to the post referendum polling done by Lord Ashcroft. The Remainers number 1 reason for voting the way they did was fear (economic fear). The number 1 for Leavers was “decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/
@chris_sh. If you dig a bit deeper you’ll find “taking control” was pretty much code for reducing immigration.
Both campaigns were almost wholly negative. I suppose you can say leave clothed their negative message in patriotic rhetoric that at least purported to be somewhat positive. Remain didn’t have anything positive to say.
@Kevin colwill
“If you dig a bit deeper you’ll find “taking control” was pretty much code for reducing immigration.”
Perhaps, but there again there was an option for that, which was the No 2 answer.
“Remain didn’t have anything positive to say.”
They thought they had a winning formula, but it didn’t quite work this time.
So the blame game starts. Older people are at the top of the hit list.
Tim Farron’s message that the Lib Dems main priority (if elected) will be to get the UK back into the EU.
Steady on, what about the millions who voted to leave. I would have thought a liberal party’s aim now would be to reach out and understand why over half the population voted that way; then to get cracking and offer solutions to their very real problems.
It was not just the negative campaigning that worked, Leave was a more competent campaign and effectively was more united. Locally no-one could get Remain materials, posters never arrived, no-one could get an answer from their contact centres, events would be advertised and not happen, negative messages were over the top and so unbelievable, a speaker from remain for a meeting was requested – no reply ever received and the event went by, there seemed to be no voter identification and no knocking up on the day. It forcibly recalled the Yes campaign for the alternative vote. Leave’s rapid rebuttal unit was 100% on the ball, they had 5 key messages and they were rammed home day after day on all possible media, Remain was confused, inconsistent and always on the back foot. Not to knock the people who did work hard and managed some positive things but it was with one hand tied behind our backs. Anyone who tried to campaign disagree with that?
I am so pleased to read this article. People who feel alienated from society and know they have nothing to lose will easily be swayed by unprincipled politicians. For more than thirty years these people have been by and large disregarded by the rest of us. Their concerns have been easily dismissed as racist but many who voted to leave thought their children would have a worse life then they do. This is appalling. This is what the Thatcherite consensus has delivered: a polarised society with those who have little to use voting for change.
I think it’s right that our party should continue with its pro Europe stance, with its ideals of a diverse society but we must clearly and loudly link this with a better deal for the have nots. We must start talking to economists who have an alternative to austerity and I think we should take a detailed, technical look at migration so that it doesn’t impinge on poorer communities so greatly.
RIghtsaidfredfan – why do you opt for anonymity? Are you not proud to own your comments publicly? The previous two articles on LDV garnered 140 comments and only 4 of them were clearly from women. It is not regressive to find this imbalance intriguing.
I have submitted an article but it has not been used.