Tag Archives: political narrative

Roz Savage MP writes: Not left, Not right. Liberal.

Not Left. Not Right. Liberal.

The Green victory in the Manchester Gorton and Denton by-election should stiffen every Liberal Democrat spine.

Not because we suddenly face a new political opponent. But because it reveals something important about the electorate.

Voters are restless. They are frustrated with managerial politics. They are wary of institutions. And when they sense conviction, clarity and purpose – even if they do not agree with every detail – they respond positively.

That matters to us, and our future strategy. 

If we do not define clearly what Liberalism stands for, others will fill that space with their own narratives of change. The Manchester result is not simply about the Greens. It is about a wider hunger for something that feels principled and future-facing.

And that makes it more urgent than ever that we explain who we are.

Every few years someone tries to pin down the Liberal Democrats to a position on the traditional political spectrum. Are you left or right? Are you centrist?

It is an understandable question. British politics has trained us to see everything through that narrow lens – a straight line stretching from higher taxes to lower taxes, from big state to small state.

But that axis no longer explains the world we are living in. And it certainly does not capture what British Liberalism is about.

The word “liberal” has become slippery. Some hear it and think libertarian – no rules, no guardrails. Others assume it means American-style progressivism. Neither is correct. British Liberalism is its own tradition: rooted in liberty, fairness, community and the decentralisation of power.

If we accept the old frame, we fight on someone else’s battlefield. If we redefine it, we start telling a much more compelling story.

So what is the alternative?

Open vs Closed

The dividing line in modern politics is increasingly not economic theory but mindset.

Open politics is confident, cooperative and outward-looking. It believes Britain succeeds when we work with others, welcome new ideas, and adapt to change – to the excitement of new experiences and learning from others. It values evidence over dogma and sees diversity not as a threat but as enrichment.

Closed politics is defensive and tribal. It thrives on suspicion and nostalgia. It prefers blame to problem-solving.

That does not map neatly onto left or right. It cuts across them.

As Liberals, we are unapologetically on the side of openness – to trade, to ideas, to scrutiny, to renewal.

In Manchester, voters backed a party that projected a clear moral stance and a sense of direction. If we want to compete in that space, we must be equally clear about ours.

Power hoarded vs Power shared

If there is one axis that defines Liberalism more than any other, it is this.

Do we concentrate power in Westminster, in corporate monopolies, in unaccountable institutions? Or do we share it – and give power back to the people?

When we argue for electoral reform, we are arguing for shared political power.

When we back community energy and SMEs, we are arguing for shared economic power.

When we push for devolution, citizens’ assemblies, co-operatives and local procurement, we are saying that the people affected by decisions should shape them.

This is not technocracy. It is democratic imagination.

If we are centrists, it is purely because our belief in the individual means we are as wary of the reach of the state as we are about the clout of big business.

That instinct – sceptical of concentrated power wherever it sits – is the golden thread of British Liberalism.

And it is precisely this instinct that allows us to offer something distinctive in our winnable seats: not just protest, but power; not just anger, but agency.

Short-term vs Long-term

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 37 Comments

The open society and our internationalist story

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society

So states the preamble to our Federal Constitution.

In a political climate increasingly defined by identity, insecurity, and polarisation, I think it would be helpful for us to explicitly consider what we mean when we talk about an Open Society.  Here I want to make the case that the open society can be viewed through the prism of another of the Liberal Democrats’ core commitments – our internationalism.  

Karl Popper first coined the term Open Society to describe a system that resists authoritarianism and defends individual liberty through rational, democratic means. It was a product of the mid-20th century, born from the trauma of fascism and the hope of post-war reconstruction. But the phrase has since drifted into the background of our politics—understood intuitively, but rarely claimed explicitly.

I think we should be making the position a lot more explicit than we do. Not just as a vague liberal instinct, but as a clear ideological banner—one that differentiates us from Labour’s managed decline, the Conservatives’ nationalist retrenchment, and Reform’s anti-globalist populism. If we articulate it well, the Open Society can be the hook around we offer a forward-facing vision of Britain’s role in the world and its commitment to fairness at home.

Beyond fortress or fog

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 15 Comments

Pay the top, squeeze the lot – the intuitive definition of Toryism

It is indicative that the ‘Welfare Bill’ made a news splash mainly for the Labour Party’s disarray “now we vote, now we won’t”. Otherwise no emotions shown or played, no questions, no strong public reaction. (With the exception of Tim Farron’s speech). The conclusion? Business as usual.

At the other end of the political spectrum, Labour is leaning left – we do not know the policies yet but the move is apparent. Whatever the result of the Labour leader’s election it will be ‘business as usual’.

What it shows is that Labour and the Tories are reverting to their stereotype. During my hustings as a PPC for South Holland and Deepings I argued that we cannot rely on ‘business friendly Labour’ and ‘working people Tories’. I reasoned that if and when they are put under pressure, if and when they have to make a decision in face of uncertainty, they will retort to their ‘intuitive reaction’: so the Tories will cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor and the Labour expresses preferences for Jeremy Corbyn.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 13 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Tom Walker
    I’ve enjoyed this lively debate, thank you for all the comments. As people, our perspectives and conclusions will always be different. This reflects our diver...
  • Gill Travers
    Chris says "he harsh truth is that, unless we have a message that gives us an identity among those who don’t take a massive interest in politics but do at l...
  • paul barker
    If we are going to attract new Voters, Young Voters & Women in particular, then we have to be prepared to annoy & appall some other Voters. Trying to pl...
  • Peter Wrigley
    I think Kira Collins is wrong. When Jo Grimond was leader he wrote an article in the Observer (I think it was in the very first edition of their weekend Magazi...
  • Mick Taylor
    It is NOT a review of policy. It's a review of strategy, under section 5.1 of the constitution. We have enough policy to fill the British Library. The problems ...