We have won the battle of Richmond Park. No, let’s be honest, we routed the opposition, beat them into the ground and then stomped on them. Quite a feat for the nice people’s party. Richmond Park was an upset of historic proportions of which every Lib Dem can be justifiably proud.
BUT, it is still only the first battle in what will be a long, hard and bloody war. Just how difficult it will be was demonstrated during the BBC’s by-election night coverage when plucky Baroness Susan Kramer skilfully parried vicious attacks from every other person in the room, including chairman Andrew Neil.
Since the disaster of 2015 we have it easy on the criticism front. The media other parties have dismissed and ignored the Lib Dems with a cool disdain. Now they attack. Why? Because every other major party except the SNP is now worried. They should be. The Times political staff wrote in the Saturday edition after the Richmond Park that voters were “increasingly ditching old party loyalties and instead defining themselves as pro-EU or anti-EU. “Richmond Park , “ wrote Sam Coates in his Times analysis, “has just made British politics even more unpredictable.”
The Lib Dems are the only national party that has tacked its colours squarely to the anti-Brexit mast. If Europe remains the major issue—and there is every reason to believe it will—than the Lib DEMS are the logical home for disaffected Conservative and Labour Remainers who have been galvanised into action by the shock referendum result. 48 percent voted to remain on the 23rd of June. If they transfer their allegiance to the Lib Dems—as they did in Richmond Park– then Labour and the Tories are in serious trouble.
However, the party needs to be more than just an anti-Brexit, pro-Europe sanctuary to win this war. And it needs to demonstrate to the voters that their opposition is rooted in sincerely held values and that they positions the party takes are the logical extension of those values.
We have good solid values—Open, tolerant and united. They need to be repeated over and over again by as many Lib Dems on as many doorsteps and in as much literature as possible. But just repeating them mantra-like is not enough. We need to explain clearly and succinctly how these values are foundations on which we have built our policies on Europe, the NHS, ethnic minorities, education, the socially disadvantaged, human rights, international aid and a host of other issues.
Furthermore, we need to make it clear that these values are absent from the other main parties. UKIP and the Conservative leadership’s stand on Europe has empowered a distasteful sub culture of racism and xenophobia. No tolerance there. The autumn budget has exposed Theresa May’s talk of one-nation Toryism as mere rhetoric and her refusal to discuss Brexit terms is anything but open. As for the Labour Party, it has turned its back on national unity with a return to class warfare/
Our values are good values. Even if voters are unable to say they live up to them on a daily basis, we will be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of Britons who do not aspire to them. Stick to them, work with them, build on them and the war can be won.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A radical agenda but can Burnham deliver?
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
Paul Holmes
David McHardy
George Thomas
37 Comments
“We have won the battle of Richmond Park. No, let’s be honest, we routed the opposition, beat them into the ground and then stomped on them”
Shockingly inappropriate as well as inaccurate, does no one edit these articles before they are published.
A few years ago I heard Graham Watson MEP talk about the future division in politics being between “drawbridge up, and “drawbridge down” views of the world.
I think that future has now arrived.
I don’t think its any accident that most people I know who are pro-EU are also tolerant, anti-racist, pro LGBT rights, internationalist and optimistic about the modern world.
By contrast ‘antis’ are mostly narrow minded, xenophobic, anti immigration (some racist or bordering on it), and nostalgic for past certainties. Whether people holding either of these set of views can be described as ‘working class’ or otherwise is irrelevant – its about values and attitudes. Social class no longer determines how people vote the way it did 50 years ago.
As Liberals (and Social Democrats come to that) we have a huge heritage from the repeal of the corn laws through the 1906 government’s foundation of the welfare state. Liberals were the first to realise that the UK’s future was in a united Europe, not as a fading Imperial power. We opposed apartheid, supported equal rights for minorities. And we also took right but difficult decisions on Ugandan Asians, Hong King Chinese, Kosova and Iraq. We’ve also championed civil liberties, whether that was opposing ID cards in the 1950s, or the ‘snoopers charter’ today.
There are large number of people who agree with us on a whole range of issues who have voted Labour for years, (and some have voted Tory – often to keep Labour out). We can re-build our connection with the voters that won us large number of seats in 1997-2005, But need to recognise that this will probably happen quicker in the urban seats that voted Remain in 2016, like Cambridge, Cardiff Central, Bristol West, Portsmouth South, Manchester Withington etc.
I watched all of the BBC Richmond by-election night coverage.
Andrew Neil did not make a vicious attack on Baroness Kramer. As always, Andrew Neil asked intelligent, well researched, probing questions. Exactly what we need and expect of interviewers.
Those with a good case always welcome such probing questions because it gives them the opportunity to put their case and the counter arguments.
@ Tom Arms : “We have won the battle of Richmond Park. No, let’s be honest, we routed the opposition, beat them into the ground and then stomped on them”.
For goodness sake, get a sense of proportion. We re-won what used to be a Liberal seat until 2010 by just under 2,000 votes. We should be pleased, should enjoy it, but be realistic. It would be tough to retain in a Spring General Election.
Two other thoughts –
1. I really don’t like the brutalism of ‘stomping into the ground’. It’s the sort of stuff you would wince at if you hear it at a football match.
2. Yes, I want to Remain – but – there will come a time when we need broader wider more sophisticated policies that are relevant to modern society, and when the whole Brexit thing will become one long yawn. One trick pony we should not be.
Very interesting. This is the sort of article which draws me back to this site. Perhaps something was mislaid whilst covering the Gambia election.
Our stance on the EU is enough to get people listenig, enough to get some of them to vote for us at a by-election, but we will need more to maintain the interest and keep the votes, so we must not be shy of using the opportunity to explain our other policies.
I am sure many will discover that they’ve always agreed with much of what we have to offer. It is important to listen to their other aspirations and value their fresh perspective.
OK, the language is somewhat gung-ho, but the message is well placed that our opposition to Brexit and support for the EU is an expression of Liberalism – openness with a spirit that thinks globally and long-term, cooperating with our neighbours and that delivers locally.
We cannot turn the clocks back, we cannot switch off the internet and other channels of communication, entropy cannot go in reverse. India, China and other less developed large populations will continue to advance and demand a bigger share of the world economy, demanding more of the resources that we have appropriated for ourselves. Europe has to learn to be more self sufficient, more efficient in our own use of resources and less dependent on miserably paid workers in distant lands.
I agree that we should stick to our values. I’d also add that we shouldn’t hesitate to highlight the failures of others to stick to their’s. The Conservatives, for instance, in trying to out-UKIP UKIP have abandoned their traditional pro-business stance and are now pursuing a policy which the vast majority of our businesses are opposed to. We should pitch ourselves directly to those businesses as the champions of continuing EU & Single Market membership. Give businesses a direct choice – do they put their donations behind us, a party that supports EU membership as they do, or, the Conservatives who now oppose that policy?
Guido reports that the Greens were offered a bung not to stand in Richmond Park.
http://order-order.com/2016/12/06/green-party-offered-250000-not-stand-richmond/
I’ve been avoiding this thread because of its ‘war’ imagery …
But today the Government has announced that they will back a Labour motion to publish their ‘Brexit plan’ before triggering Article 50, and are calling on Labour in return to support an amendment that commits the nation to Article 50 before March, and to said plan not constraining the government’s ultimate deal.
Effectively Theresa May is trying to – in one move – detach the soft-Brexiteers in her own party from wavering away, whilst pulling Corbyn and the mass of Labour (still either apathetic about or scared of outright opposition to Brexit, and not universally in favour of any of the various second referendum proposals) into a new centre-ground of her own creation, as a parliamentary shield against attacks from Pro-Europeans (notably us and the SNP) and UKIP on the ‘hard Brexit’ right.
I guess, that if the Supreme Court rules a certain way, the motion itself could be taken as parliamentary consent to Article 50 – although that’s a little speculative.
FWIW, I don’t believe that values of tolerance and openness are ‘absent’ from the other major parties (although I have profound doubts about UKIP, and I might make a equally harsh judgement on individual MPs in other parties).
I feel that the application of those values to our current situation has been compromised by the actions and policies of the other major parties. That’s a bit different.
I think that in such a time of upheaval, profound and passionate as our feelings are, it’s a bit daft to go about blanket-demonising our current enemies in wilful ignorance that we might need to – and be realistically able to – work with them in future.
I think that anyone offering the Greens money not to stand would be breaking electoral law?
@Tony Greaves
I don’t know if it breaks any rules. If true it offers an insight into why the local Greens complained about having to stand aside in their letter to the Guardian.
“I don’t know if it breaks any rules.”
Surely at the very least the £250k should be added to the Liberal Democrats By-election expenses, putting them way over the limit.
If there is any truth in this, then it stinks and it shows the LD’s contempt towards democracy
There is no suggestion at this time this money was offered by a member or donor of the LibDems, and the Green national leadership say if such a donation was offered, it was not accepted.
The Green MP who stood aside says she was not made aware of such a donation and it did not affect her decision.
I would be wary of trusting Guido.
@matt
The expense wasn’t incurred as the deal (if indeed there was one) fell through.
To me the offer sounds dodgy and the sort of thing you hope is against the law, that doesn’t mean it is against the law though.
Well all this flip flopping, you can never be sure what is real anymore.
After all, it was only a few years ago that Nick Clegg imposed a 3 line whip on MP’s to abstain from a vote for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Nick Clegg wanted a wider referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union.
Tim Farron resigned from the Front bench so he could vote in favour of the referendum.
And Tom Brake was calling for a in out referendum, saying that the people must have their say
http://www.tombrake.co.uk/en/article/2008/071387/tom-brake-challenges-the-government-and-conservatives-to-support-in-or-out-referendum-on-europe
“”A referendum would be the perfect opportunity for the British public to determine whether Britain should continue to be a member of the European Union or not.
“For decades we have argued about Britain’s role in Europe but without voters having the chance to put their cross where it counts. We have been waiting for this chance for thirty years. We mustn’t squander it again.”
“Unfortunately the last time the House of Commons had a chance to vote for an “in or out” referendum, the Conservatives joined forces with the Labour Government to block the proposal”.
“The EU has changed radically since the referendum in 1975. No one under fifty has been able to vote on the significant changes that have taken place over the last few decades. So whatever we all think about the EU and I support our membership, we should all agree that the people must have their say.””
All this flip flopping from the leadership and the parlimentary party, is it any wonder there is so much confusion and contradiction amongst the membership
in 2008 50% of the “current” Parliamentary party defied a 3 line whip to support the Conservatives Call for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty
Alistair Carmichael
Tim Farron
John Pugh
Greg Mulholland
Tom Brake abstained, but as pointed out in the above post, he called for an in out referendum on EU Membership.
Nick Clegg was calling for an In out referendum also in 2008 “”I’ve been personally committed to a referendum for a very long time and its not just what was in the last manifesto, its what I personally feel. And I wanted to be honest to myself and my constituents.””
So giving that was the parties position back then, they clearly believed in calling for a referendum and giving the electorate their say. What has changed since then?
How come all of a sudden they do not believe in referendums and want to try and block the vote?
@matt – There is absolutely no suggestion in the article that the “bung” was offered by a member of the LibDems or by anyone associated with the party.
As such, it is ridiculous to suggest it be added to the LibDems expenses particularly when the Greens party HQ seem to know nothing about it.
In comparative probabilities, it is more likely that Guido was offered a bung to concoct the story (though neither probabilities would be worth anything).
Martin
To avoid solicitors letters dropping through your letterbox,.. on foolish comments like “it is more likely that Guido was offered a bung to concoct the story “, you really need,.. at the very least, to put the,.. IMHO, at the end of your scurrilous missive.?
The very fact that the Greens decided to stand down without taking a bung, suggests this is a red-herring. I think it made absolute sense for the Greens to step aside, as do many of their local members, but I imagine that if actually offered money to do so, they’d be indignant, and stand out of spite.
I don’t think the LibDems can afford a £250,000 bung, and if we had that much floating around, there are much better ways to spend it. It is possible that a private individual who was feeling desperate thought it a good idea, but I don’t think that either we or the Greens should be blamed for that. If it is true, and not just an attempt by those terrified of a ‘progressive alliance’ to undermine it and to stop everyone from talking about the very things we want to be talking about.
As for the topic of this thread, it’s very true to say that many eager Remain voters are socially liberal, and receptive to taking an evidence-based approach to deciding policy, rather than getting stuck in dogma. They probably already prefer our policies on things like drugs and the environment, so let’s make sure we get that message out there. It’s also vital we remember to ask what else interests them, so they feel valued, which is something missing from Labour especially.
John Peters,
I was going to suggest order-order was likely to be more to your tastes, looks like you’ve found it without my help. I hope you’ll be very happy there, although most of its posters seem to enjoy being angry, with more than a bit of the latest phobia thrown in.
Dunne: Read Hume on miracles.
Tom
“No, let’s be honest, we routed the opposition, beat them into the ground and then stomped on them. Quite a feat for the nice people’s party”
I agree with 90% of your article and I would be the first to subscribe to, “nice” people don’t win elections, “effective” (ideally nice too) people do, so lets challenge back robustly whenever appropriate.
However, even I was shocked by your opener.
My reading of the situation is that in this one seat, the LD’s have every reason to be extremely grateful to many Green and Labour voters
Turning nasty against people who are wiling to help in certain seats (albeit not for altruistic reasons) is, I would suggest, a bit of an own goal?
@steve comer `I don’t think its any accident that most people I know who are pro-EU are also tolerant, anti-racist, pro LGBT rights, internationalist and optimistic about the modern world.`
Funny that – i’m a Gay man been to 50 countries globally including all European ones except Kosovo, Belarus and Moldova. As for the racism angle I’m working for a Luxembourg based company for tax purposes at the sharpest end of the Labour market. You know whose wages are undercut by Free movement the most? The hard-working BME communities (along with the white working class) largely afro-caribbean and Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi of whom 2/3 make up the employees.
That’s why I want a hard Brexit with sensible migration reforms and visa system that incorporates a pathway to citizenship not just from the EU but globally. That’s more progressive and also non-racist and internationalist.
“Open” isn’t a value, neither is “united” its probably the worse slogan since stronger economy, fairer society.
Caracatus, ‘Open, tolerant and united’, as I suggest in my piece entitled Goodwill towards us is growing… published here yesterday, has meaning in the image it evokes (and if you are a Lib Dem, I’d invite you to comment there on our party image). Tom Arms, some of our values are implicit in this image, and I entirely agree with your statement, ‘We need to explain clearly and succinctly how these values are foundations on which we have built our policies on Europe, the NHS, ethnic minorities, education, the socially disadvantaged, international aid and a host of other issues.’ It’s really helpful to highlight like that so many areas which we care about and seek to improve or help with. Interestingly, though, the phrase does also work as a mantra or image, which may be powerful subliminally – cf Mike S’s comment on my thread.
Stick to the values to win the war……..
Tim Farron
February 2008
https://timfarron.co.uk/en/article/2008/0105150/farron-denial-of-referendum-vote-is-an-outrage
Tim Farron has expressed his anger the refusal of the Speaker of the House of Commons to allow a vote on the Liberal Democrat amendment calling for an in-out referendum on the EU. The Liberal Democrat amendment would have given MPs the opportunity to debate whether the people should be allowed to vote on Britain’s membership.
“To deny Parliament the chance to vote on our proposal to allow the public to have a real say on Britain’s membership of the European Union is an outrage.
Sticking to values, what changed?
The electorate where given their REAL SAY, They voted to leave the EU.
Matt – I’m afraid some people do seem to have short, or selective, memories, don’t they?
Lot of very odd comments above which seem to have little to do with the article. To my recollection the libs have always been a pro EU party, their voters have been pro EU, and the party should continue this. At the moment there is also an obvious electoral advantage to being the only pro EU party when half the nation wants that outcome.
I dont believe any party stepped aside at Richmond as a favour to the lib dems. They all stepped aside to further their aims with regard to Leave or Remain. They did this because they understand that this is the biggest issue in voters minds right now. Likely it will be the biggest issue at the next general election too. I dont see the Richmond result being reversed, in fact I see every likelihood it would be repeated in similar seats. Not because voters suddenly love libs, but as usual because they hate something else more.
The big danger in Uk politics for every party is that the Brexit vote was caused by voter dissatisfaction with the status quo, but neither leaving the EU nor staying inside will cure this. Staying, because those voters will just say their will was denied, and leaving because it simply isnt going to change anything to make their lives better. Probably it will make them worse.
Any party which wishes to move forward in the long term needs to find solutions for the disaffected. This seems closest to a traditional labour approach, ironically what labour members seem to believe and have tried to bring about by electing Corbyn, but which is vehemently opposed by their MPs. Labour risks alienating just about everyone and has managed to turn a potential dream ticket into an out and out disaster. Can the libs square the circle of appealing simultaneously to those who have benefited from changes in society, and those who have lost out?
@David, I definitely think a lot of the referendum result was down to the public being fed-up, and feeling like they’re being left behind by those who are in charge aka the elite. It’s only because people feel so far removed from what’s going on, and that decisions are not made for their benefit, that they are so ready to accept the sort of rhetoric used by Farage or Trump, or any other number of wild promises that wouldn’t necessarily work in practice.
So while I definitely agree that we need to think carefully about which policies would make things better for those left-behind, we need to be mindful that winning votes is even easier when you promise simple solutions to those complex problems, and we need to decide whether we want to join in with that, or combat it. IMO, offering simple solutions just compounds the problem and yet being a minority party in opposition has limited impact, regardless of the quality of our ideas.
IMO, our ‘simple solution’, should be electoral reform. Our biggest hurdle is that we made a hash of that last time around, but disaffected voters, of which there are many, should be easily persuaded of the perils of FPTP.
The other idea that is easy to sell is blaming others. Whether it’s blaming immigration for low wages, or benefit scroungers, the entire banking sector, or the ‘liberal elite’, the idea is powerful, even when the truth is much more nuanced. Meaningful policies are much harder to sell, and take time. In the world of social media spats, it’s a real challenge to find people who are prepared to take their time making up their mind on anything. Everyone is expected to have a firm opinion on everything immediately.
@David Pearce 7th Dec ’16 – 6:45am
“Lot of very odd comments above which seem to have little to do with the article.”
I think the comments have a lot to do with the article. The article itself is titled stick to the values to win the war.
Now it was clearly the Liberal Democrats Party position to have an in / out referendum
Nick Clegg lead calls for one
Liberal Democrat MP’s defied a 3 line whip in order to vote for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Clearly Liberal Democrat MP’s where in favour of having a plebiscite on an in / out EU referendum.
You called for it for years.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/25/eu.liberaldemocrats
You actually got what you wanted.
Now you did not like the result you got, or thought you would get, all of a sudden, referendums are bad and should be ignored.
So I ask again, what happened to sticking to values to win the war?
Because it seems as though you no longer value the opinion and choices of the people??
I am not denying that the Liberal Democrats are and always have been a Pro-EU Party. What I am pointing out is that they always believed that the electorate should decide if we should stay or not in the EU and the Liberal Democrats believed that they could win the arguments and ultimately the vote.
Obviously that did not happen and so now they are going back on their values…..
The LibDem position by 2010 was to have a referendum when it was proposed to give more powers from Westminster to the EU, but not when things were carrying on the same. Previous governments had all taken the view that getting stuff approved by parliament was quite enough. The exception was Harold Wilson post-1975, where he had a divided party – many left-wingers saw the EU as a capitalist plot. Somewhere in the 1980s, Tory right-wingers started to view it as a socialist plot. Both are exagerrations. Hence David Cameron’s ill-fated attempt to repeat Wilson’s trick.
Liberals and LibDem view that the Common Market-EU has a lot of effects on the UK, whether we are in or out, that it does a lot of things for the UK (some of which we can’t do for ourselves), leads to the view that we are better in. This is unchanged since the 1950s. By Harold Macmillan’s time the Tory leadership had come round to this view, consistently held by the Tory leadership up to 2016, and which was shared by many of Wilson’s ministers. De Gaulle’s obduracy (he saw the UK as a Fifth Column for the USA)
meant that Wilson was unable to take much action either way in the 1960s.
Of course, it is arguable that Hard Brexit (and perhaps some sorts of Soft Brexit) IS giving more power to the EU, as it can take decisions that affect us WITHOUT British participation.
@Ian Sanderson (RM3) 7th Dec ’16 – 11:58am
“The LibDem position by 2010 was to have a referendum when it was proposed to give more powers from Westminster to the EU, but not when things were carrying on the same. Previous”
Since 2010??? How do you explain your 2009 European Manifesto then
2009 Euro manifesto :
” Liberal Britain, Liberal Europe
Despite a promise to put Britain at the heart of Europe, over the last 12 years Labour has lost its way, leaving Britain
without much influence in many areas of EU business.
Liberal Democrats have argued for a referendum on whether Britain stays in
or leaves the EU.We are the only party confident enough to put the pro-European case to the
British people on the big issue facing us– and let the people decide. Britain will
only win the case for a flexible,democratic Europe in Brussels if we settle our arguments at home on
whether we should be part of the EU or not.”
So clearly what you said can’t be right.
Besides, if the parties position on putting out to plebiscite whether we should or shouldn’t remain a member of the EU, changed. For what reasons did it change? Where, when and by whom??
Matt
I am at the ukip wing edge of our party , I say , as a self parody , on the EU , as I have far more called for it to be reformed than supported blindly.
The silliest thing Nick Clegg said was the EU would look pretty much as is in a few years if he was imagining it !
The silliest thing Barack Obama said was egaged in the effort to get a trade deal , the uk would go to the back of the queue .
Complacency got us all here at this juncture.
But we did not as a nation vote for one kind of Brexit. Had May said she would debate and discuss what it might look like , with parliament and cross- party lines, we as a party might have taken a different stance . She did not .
There is nothing inconsistent or undemocratic in calling for a referendum on the deal.
@Lorenzo Cherin
Thank you for your reply.
That does not really answer my questions though on sticking to values.
The Liberal Democrat Party was in favour of holding a plebiscite on whether we should remain or leave the EU, indeed they called for one on many occasions. They even orchestrated a walkout of the commons in protest.
what happened to those values?
Because from the language we have heard from the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party and indeed the membership, does not appear to be supportive NOW of either holding referendums or indeed respecting the democratic outcome.
When did these values change????
If the purpose of journalism is to stimulate the debate then I claim success, and value all of your opinions and contributions. The only comment I would make in response to the above is the suggestion that I went too far in talking about battles and head stomping. Let me make it clear, I was speaking metaphorically. I have found over the years that the strongest metaphors are best at carrying the implied message.