Our election review concluded – we lacked vision, relevance and strategy in 2019. In this context, I want to return to Michael Kitching’s piece (“However beautiful the strategy you should occasionally look at the results” – Op-Eds April 25th). He makes several important points arguing that we need a greater focus on delivery and more effectiveness in execution. But most importantly, he argues for clear long term strategic objectives. As he points out, a framework for allocating resources to constituencies is not a strategic objective; it is tactics. Stopping Brexit was not a long term strategic objective for the party; it was a policy (albeit a good and extremely important one) with a limited shelf life.
Our key strategic objectives need to be consistent for 10- 20 years. They, alongside our values, structure and guide all decision making. They cannot be given up because someone else moves onto the territory. They should not be the kind of objective which becomes outdated either because no-one any longer wants it, or because it relates to something that has already happened.
Across an electoral cycle, we need a small number of high profile policies that the electorate understands. These are not strategic objectives. Strategic objectives are the basis from which they derive – and over a very long period of time, they will be what the electorate associates with us and knows us for. The policy was a penny on income tax for education. The key objective – and what for a while the party was known for – was better education.
Kitching himself proposes that the key strategic objective of the party should be to form a majority government within ten years. That does not work for me because being in power is the means, not the end, and because – while we obviously need many more MP’s to be relevant and impactful – forming a majority government is much too much of a stretch to be a useful lodestar.
So what then?
Here are five potential objectives. Things which in 15 years we can look back on and say – yes we did this (whether through government, through influencing the debate, or otherwise). Which we can use to give a solid base to our deliberations about policies structure and tactics. Which can help us build the kind of disciplined machine that some of our competitors already have: –
- Make the UK fairer
- Create one of the best and most inclusive educational systems in the world
- Promote /stick to the path to net-zero for the UK (by 2045) and the world
- Keep the political debate in the UK open, honest and fact-based
- Make the UK welcoming, outward-looking, optimistic and engaged in the world
Though it is outside the scope of this short blog, most of these objectives can be measured – and, to make them more productive, measures should be agreed where possible. But if in 2035, we have contributed to these objectives, I, for one, will feel my time on party activities has been well spent.
* Kevin has been a party member since June 2017, from Kingston
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
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
21 Comments
As you say, objectives should be measurable. These are more like motherhood statements or vague wishes.
It would be unfair to demand secondary and tertiary considerations when floating broad brush objectives but they are just empty shells without more explanation.
Ironically, the third one is the most defined yet totally fantasy.
Agree that they need more fleshing out; that can be the next post
Agree that 2045 is extremely hard – but I don’t think it is a fantasy. The progress of renewables has surprised us on the upside and I think there is pretty good evidence that there is a lot more to come. Also good reason for optimism on transport. Other aspects are harder – but if it wasn’t we wouldn’t need to campaign on it.
Kevin, the problem with renewables is that they are intermittent, varying between in excess of demand and zero. The former can destroy the grid and the latter requires 100% back up, generally fossil fuels. I don’t see the wind becoming more controlled by 2045.
Climate change was not the main theme of the post. But there are as you doubtless know a number of approaches to resolving grid balancing without resort to fossil fuels. While the wind will not be more controlled by 2045, it is quite reasonable to expect technology, the level of investment in interconnectors and batteries, etc to have move forward significantly given the importance of the issue that needs tackling
This short report addresses some of the issues.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/KellyDecarb-1.pdf
Electric plane certified by EU regulator 1st in the World. Germany investing heavily in hydrogen fuel (euractiv.com). Renewables are progressing rapidly. The party should be at the forefront AND shout about it.To be ahead of the curve education is a must and should remain an objective.NOW is the time when we should be devising for the LONG TERM step by step. Set the agenda with the voters. First tactic to win Council elections.
It’s a good strategic approach Kevin and no doubt you can flesh it out with measurable KPI’s. But, bearing in mind the quote attributed to Harold MacMillan we do need to be able to respond in the here and now to developing events.
We have just come off four years of extreme political volatility since the Brexit referendum in 2016 and have delayed this years local elections into next year.
The health and economic crisis that is underway has made the 2019 manifesto positions of all parties redundant in many respects. The steep rise in unemployment expected this summer and autumn https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53060529 was not anticipated in the manifesto programs. With hundreds of thousands of school, university and college leavers entering a job market where there are no jobs, a job guarantee scheme is urgently needed over the next few weeks.
The government’s main policy measures – the Job Retention Scheme, and loans and grants to business – are designed not to boost the economy in the short term, but rather to mitigate as far as possible the permanent damage that would result from widespread business failures and unemployment during this pandemic.
What we do and say between now and next May is likely to have a significant bearing on how LibDems fare in 2021 local elections across the UK. In London alone the lockdown has left a £500m hole in the budget. London has a heavy concentration of severely disrupted hospitality, retail, leisure and tourism-related businesses as well as Brexit impacted financial services firms. We need a firm position on the 2metre vs 1metre social distancing rule; the pace of easing of the lockdown (particularly the reopening of schools) as well as a UK wide funding plan for restoring local authority financial sustainability and service provision including fire, police and transport services in the capital.
Replying to Peter’s point; I have seen this report before. It pulls out some of the challenges with net zero which need to be addressed. But it is not balanced – I see it is funded by GWPF so perhaps I should not be surprised. While the current policy mix is making some headway, there is no doubt that it is not on track for net zero by 2050 let alone 2045. Which is why we have to make this a key strategic objective.
Replying to Joe Burke: Completely agree both that we need to respond to the here and now and that we need to deal with big changes in our world – the June 2016 vote, COvid-19 etc.
But I think the strategic context we put around this is critical
1 With 11 MP’s and limited share of voice we will struggle at the moment to respond with well judged and impactful positions on every issue as it comes up. For example, the issue about 1m vs 2m distancing is a hard choice and what we say on it probably isn’t going to tip the debate anyway. So shouldn’t we rather focus on areas where we can make a difference both to the country and to the way the party is perceived? – which means we need to agree what these policy areas and approaches are – ie what are our strategic objectives?
2 In the long run we are only going to rebuild credibility if we have a consistent approach to issues, consistent messages, and, given that we are currently resource constrained (and so cannot cover the whole waterfront well), a consistent set of policy areas where we have something distinctive to say.
Let’s keep it simple. How about some of the following (in no particular order) just for starters?
1. Get someone (a Leader?) to whom the media will listen and not just make fun of.
2. Say something simple but serious about the economy, like ‘We need to make more things HERE’ or ‘If you want better public services, you had better start paying MORE for them’, or even ‘Wake up, folks, the world doesn’t owe us a living!’?
3. Stop banging on about (choose any three or add a few of your own) : LGBT, Europe, BAME, Trans gender, Climate Change, Statues, Voting Reform, ‘Britain needs Liberalism’……
4. Get serious about Local Government and the need to make it work (as it clearly isn’t at the moment).
5. Make sure ALL activists, Parliamentary Spokespersons, Council and Parliamentary candidates are SINGING FROM THE SAME HYMN SHEET.
I found this line really interesting: “being in power is the means, not the end”.
I think this sums up why progressive parties are so often out of power – because they don’t want to be in power. They want to change things, and know that they really need to be in power in order to do so, but they don’t like the compromises that being in power requires.
Tories are the opposite. They want to be in power, but they see changing things as the necessary evil they have to accept in order to get there. The reason they’re so often in power is that they’re the only ones who truly want to be.
A majority government in 10 years seems extremely unlikely, but we do seem to live in an era when unlikely things keep happening. Furthermore, I don’t really see how any organisation without such an objective could call itself a political party. It’s a pressure group.
“Create one of the best and most inclusive educational systems in the world” – this is the strategic objective we should adopt above all else. It is the 10 year hill we can commit to climbing. Focusing strategically on education will provide us with a clear narrative that people can instantly understand and get behind. Look at Blair in 1997 – there was a lot going on in policy terms, but what do people remember? – education, education, education. We have the people, credibility and values to dominate the education policy space (we even have a friendly think tank to work on ideas). If we make that strategic choice to be the party of education we can build a compelling narrative and develop broad, nationwide support.
A lot of good sense here Kevin. We need people like you on our party committees. I hope you will consider standing.
Replying to Dan Martin (and to some extent John Marriott):
1 Yes – having a very clear long term focus on a well defined goal (such as being in power) is usually a pre-requisite of success. We don’t have that focus at the moment .
2 Yes – If you want to make things happen rather than just talking you need to make compromises. We do make these compromises, but not always in a consistent way.
3 Yes – to pick up one of John Marriott’s points – we need to have a consistent view on a smallish set of important issues (though I don’t necessarily agree with him on what he would de-prioritise)
BUT
1 ‘Power in 10 years’ isn’t the right objective because (a) I don’t think its at the heart of what we really want. What we really want is to change the country and people’s lives for the better. That’s what gets us out of bed – not having the orange team rather than the blue or red team at the top of the league. And (b) as I wrote in the blog, I think it is too much of a stretch, and there is no point in having an objective which is completely out or reach
2 We can have clearer more consistent strategic objectives than we have now, without the primary focus being on ‘power within 10 years’
3 Saying that power is a means to an end rather than an end in itself definitely doesn’t mean we can let ourselves off the hook of making difficult decisions facing political realities. What I want is for us to have a rich enough context of strategic objectives to be able to make these decisions in a consistent way.
Not a word, not a single one, on rescuing the fatally damaged economy that is expected to pay for this.
Response to Innocent Bystander
That is not quite true. The best and most inclusive education system, an open and honest political culture, openness to the world, fairness and an environmentally sustainable economy are planks of a competitive UK economy for the long term.
Indeed these objectives could almost have been presented as a potential distinctive and enduring position for the party on the economy in contrast to the positions of the other two parties.
Whether the issue needs more specific reference as part of our long term strategic objectives obviously needs to be discussed, and as others have pointed out, we need clear polices on the nearer term economic issues.
But no I don’t think I am ignoring the economy.
This article is excellent, the comments thread has been derailed, as usual, by a Climate Change Denier. Can we please ignore him & talk about the Article ?
Agreed with just about every word, until it came to the 5 strategic goals. And there, in a nutshell, is our problem. Agreeing among ourselves what it is we actually prioritise.
Point no. 1 is platitudinous. Obviously we want a fair society, but your idea of fairness and mine might not be the same.
Point 2. Best AND most INCLUSIVE education system. Given that no one is legally excluded from schools, this implies that there are impediments to education that lay outside the school gates ? So this means that we need to focus on poverty or the family or housing if we are going to fulfill this pledge, and that’s a huge ask. Just having the best education system is enough to be getting on with.
Point 3. Fantasy.
Point 4. Well I hope that’s how we will play it, but I can’t see the other parties doing likewise.
Point 5. Too vague. All these terms need defining. Brexiteers wan’t Britain to the outward looking and engaging, it’s just that we don’t see their policies in the same light.
So what is it that we want people to think when they hear the “Lib Dems” mentioned ? Three things. The White Heat of Technology. A clear steal from Harold Wilson, a promise of high tech economic growth bringing prosperity to all. Secondly, education, education, education. Another steal from Labour (Blair) but who cares ? Third. Real local democracy, not for the benefit of power hungry wanna be politicians in Town Halls, but for ordinary people in their communities.
And what John Marriott said, especially point 3.
Thanks Chris. I will spend a little longer on this to spell out these candidates for strategic objectives in a bit more detail (or explain further what I mean by them and why I think they work) and also explain some of what I have left out and why. Might be another blog in a few days time.
You are right that arguing that we need proper long term strategic objectives isn’t the hard part.
A good start but the proposed objectives need work IMO. Good strategy depends on good analysis of what’s wrong. In other words, it starts with finding the right questions; answers follow naturally.
For starters I suggest:
REFORM PARTY. Since the dawn of time, successful leaders have started by sorting out their organisation. We KNOW that the LD approach doesn’t work. Until it does, nothing else will work as everyone trips over each other in the ongoing chaos – see Thornhill.
Solution: (a) Makeover HQ to have a SERVICE philosophy, (b) make spokespeople responsible for policy development in their area, including getting it through Conference, all coordinated by party leader.
GOVERNMENT. Stumbling from one disaster to another with out of control costs. Major causes are (b) poor coordination, (b) top-down control via targets that hamstring local management.
Solution: Switch to a ‘Strategic control’ model and move away from targets thereby empowering those at the coal face – from large departments to classroom teachers.
EDUCATION. Two big problems, (a) It’s based on a ‘producer-push’ model – kids MUST learn because targets!!! (b) Poor vocational training for ~75% who shouldn’t go to (conventional definition of) university.
Solution: (a) Switch to ‘producer-pull’ model, i.e. post-14 kids do what they want when they want. The ‘pull’ is (b) gaining entry to world-leading vocational education with tough entry requirements (but graduated opportunities for the less able).
ENVIRONMENT (inc Energy). Problem is mix of neglect and bad technology (e.g. fossil fuels, non-degradable plastics).
Solution: Aim to walk lightly on the Earth, with R&D and tax incentives to fix problems. E.g. Guarantee advantaged markets for biodegradable plastics if/when developed by taxing polluting equivalents.
REAL ECONOMY (e.g. industry). Capital seeks out profit opportunities but much of the real economy isn’t profitable enough because of ‘economic rents’ imposed by out of control finance sector and monopolies/oligopolies.
Solution. (a) Change incentives to favour long term investment over asset stripping. (b) Tackle monopolies, (c) Rebalance taxes to reduce those that add to costs (E.g. VAT, NI) and increase those on incomes and profits.
We could have three or four key values such as compassion, fairness, competence and truth. Then we could have examples such as Hong Kong, racial equality and transparent and independent audit. We could then have individual experience such as a blogger from HK etc. I would like the first to be what we are associated with and the following putting some pastry on them.