In October, I talked about the Liberal Democrats last year becoming the Official Opposition by 2025. It led to a dynamic debate within Lib Dem Voice, but nonetheless it is a crucial debate that we need to have on the direction of our party, if we wish to be a party of Government again. It is an important debate we need to have as we are in the midst of a possible realignment within British Politics, as the Conservative Party could be ‘consigned to history’.
I want to talk now, in more depth, about the second seismic political event in my October article: the Conservative Party leadership election. The first seismic political event was the General Election, where Ed Davey deserves credit for running a fantastic campaign in getting us 72 MPs. The Conservative Party leadership election deserves more attention as it is going to be the most consequential leadership election since the 1922 Committee has been formed. It could change the political landscape, as consequential as when Labour replaced the Liberals as the main centre-left party during the early 20th Century.
The new Conservative Party Leader will be elected on the 2nd November. However, the new Conservative Party Leader will no longer have hegemonic hold of the soul of Conservatism, and monopolism of Conservatism is no longer in the sole ownership of the Conservative Party. I remember writing in my Masters Dissertation back in 2015, ‘The referendum (EU) has become synonymous with the soul of Conservatism….. with Nigel Farage seen as representing the Thatcherite vision of Europe.’ Will the New Conservative Party Leader be accepted as the true heir of Conservatism, or will it be Nigel Farage who now has gained status and influence with the winning of Clacton?
The irony of the situation would be that a group, which Margaret Thatcher was honorary president of, brought down the Party which she led for fifteen years including in government for eleven years. I want to focus on how our party should use this to our advantage, and be the vanguard of a new Official Opposition, if the Conservative Party leadership election leads to the fragmentation of the Conservative Party, and how to manage Farage and the fight for the soul of Conservatism itself.
David Gauke wrote in February in the New Statesman, that the Liberal Democrats should become a pro-market liberal party. I agree with his analysis, that British Politics is heading towards three blocs: of a social-democratic Labour Party, a pro-market liberal party and a populist radical party on the right. We need to broaden our base to become like Renaissance in France and reach out to both centre-right and centre-left liberals. We need to provide a credible alternative to Labour and build a coalition of voters including centre-right liberals for the 2029 General Election.
My Conservative Opponent at the recent General Election has said the Conservatives could go into ‘oblivion’. I have had local Conservatives tell me if there is any deal with Nigel Farage, then they would entertain a ‘Macron-party’ to stop Farage. We would need to be the main part of the organization if it happened, even though it will be difficult for us after the experiences of the Coalition. I say to those bruised by the Coalition, let us see where Labour is in two years’ time. I think then it will be fair to compare the Coalition, against the incoming Labour Government’s record.
As Liberal Democrats, we must seize this potential chance of building a new voter coalition from centre-right to centre-left liberals, if we are going to be a party of Government. This means sometimes taking uncomfortable decisions as a party. I am concerned at the reactions of some members of Liberal Reform to inviting a former Secretary of State and frontline figure in the Theresa May Government. I say to those who are concerned, I implore you to come to the Liberal Reform fringe event at Conference and listen to that individual and challenge them robustly but fairly.
If I was Ed Davey, I would make ‘an open and comprehensive offer’ to those centre-right liberals who want to reject the radical right politics of Farage, and a Conservative Party that is a great shadow of its former self. I do not expect Ed to do this, but if he did the reward could be him becoming Leader of the Official Opposition. It would be ironic within a decade of the 2015 General Election, that the Conservatives are consigned to history, rather than the party that only got 8 MPs.
* Adam Robertson is a member of East Suffolk Local Party, and a member of Liberal Reform. Adam currently works for a Local Principal Authority. Former Parliamentary Candidate for Lowestoft.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
The past continues to haunt the UK's anti-corruption ministers
Richard Jefferies: The granddaddy of nature writing
Craig Levene
Alex Macfie
Mick Taylor
51 Comments
” the Conservative Party could be consigned to history”
Be careful what you wish for. There’s always going to be a right wing party. If it’s not the Tories it will be Reform. How many seats did the Lib Dems win simply because the Tory/Reform vote was split?
“I agree with his analysis, that British Politics is heading towards three blocs: of a social-democratic Labour Party, a pro-market liberal party and a populist radical party on the right.”
You could both be wrong.
Starmer’s “social-democratic Labour party” was less popular, even after the recent Tory meltdown, than Corbyn’s more socialist version. There’s no reason to expect that the current Labour Party will more popular after what looks like 5 years of economic austerity. It may well be that they will be ones “consigned to history”.
If so, we could see same pattern emerge here as we’ve seen in France. A bedraggled centre party backed by the Establishment desperately fending off opposition from both the left and right.
If the Tories could get rid of their Thatcherite legacy and become a Christian social democrat centrist party based on people like Chris Patten, Giles Brandrith, Michael Heseltine that would be very appealing.
“How many seats did the Lib Dems win simply because the Tory/Reform vote was split?” Probably not very many actually.
https://theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/7-things-we-know-about-the-lib-dems
“of the three largest parties, the Lib Dems have the highest proportion of MPs elected with over 50% of the vote [26.4%] and the lowest proportion elected with under 40%. [23.6%]”
The problem with claiming that we’d do well electorally if we became right wing, is that you are straight up arguing for us to abandon our principles for electoral gain.
We proposed to increase taxes this election (and in every election besides 2010 and 2015) because we want to have good quality public services free at the point of use (especially health and social care).
If winning elections was what mattered most to us we’d just join the Labour party (who are currently the closest thing this country will likely get to a viable market liberal party, having refused to put up taxes or reverse Tory cuts).
In any case the argument is nonsense; we were a centre left party in every election where we made double digit gains from the Tories, the types of Tories that switch to us just aren’t that ideological.
We also aren’t second place to the Tories in enough seats to overtake them by taking Tory votes.
To make gains beyond this we either have to take labour seats or knock labour into third in a bunch of places and gain tactical votes from their remaining supporters at the following election.
Either method requires us to gain votes from labour supporters, and they are ideological enough not vote for us if they think we are right wing.
Those extra seats were a protest vote across the leafy southern suburbs – beyond that the cupboard looks a bit bare elsewhere. If labour fail to deliver any meaningful change then – as Wes Streeting said over the weekend , the electorate could turn to populists. It certainly wouldn’t be looking at another centre left party . If Labour fail on immigration – and it’s going to be a difficult policy area for them – and we see what’s happening in Sweden & Ireland etc – then Reform or the Tories could make significant gains … Immigration is what’s holding centrists governments across Europe back…
I’m not sure why a properly regulated free market and free trade are thought to be contrary to liberal principals: check out the Preamble to the constitution.
Besides, the Liberal Party was founded to support free trade, specifically repeal of the Corn Laws.
In my view the post first world war coalition between Liberals and Conservatives is breaking down as the Conservative (and especially nationalistic elements) in it are becoming dominant.
There is an enormous political opportunity for Liberal Democrats in appealing to conservative liberals who have supported the Tories through the 20th century- partly out of fear of socialism -but who cannot stomach what lies ahead in isolationist nationalist Conservative party.
The attached two articles are interesting:
https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/23/peter-franklin-the-green-party-is-a-growing-generational-threat-to-the-conservatives-remaining-heartlands/
https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/23/liam-bruce-orange-is-the-new-light-blue-as-in-2015-our-path-to-office-runs-through-the-liberal-democrats/
The problem with this thesis is it conflates the left-right economic spectrum with both the liberal-conservative spectrum and the democratic-devolutionist-to-centralising-authoritarian one.
The moderate centrist Tories who distrust their Right and are inclined toward responsible government (whatever their myopia about believe the last 14 years have demonstrated that value) include a number of people who are – gosh – sincere and convinced social conservatives.
If you are sincere about accepting such people into your ranks as genuine partners and not just set-dressing, you will need to be prepared to let them participate and express their sincerely held opinions, and change the nature of the party they are joining, and its ideology.
I put it to you that the Lib Dems are incapable of doing so, for a mixture of virtuous and less-virtuous reasons. Almost none of the previous ‘moderate’ defections from the Tories were retained, and some were ridiculed and constantly put under pressure to prove they were ‘real’ liberals, and there were infinite protests/tantrums from activists who feared loss of control and ability to deliver projects they cared deeply about.
Adam Smith, the so-called prophet of laissez faire capitalism never intended the market to be left to its own devices.
Firstly he said that the government must hold the ring, meaning regulate the market so it worked properly and fairly
Secondly, he said that business people would always conspire against the public if allowed to do, thus requiring the state to ensure they didn’t.
This would not have been news to our Liberal Party forebears, who did indeed limit the freedom of the market to do as they wished, who legislated for Trades Unions to be allowed to operate without owners having to be compensated for strike action and who took some sectors into public ownership, most notably the Post office.
So Tristan Ward is quite right.
This is worth looking at too
https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/23/matthew-levine-the-road-to-a-farage-premiership-is-long-but-not-impossible/
@ Tristan Ward “In my view the post first world war coalition between Liberals and Conservatives”…..
And I’m afraid in my view, the cosying up of Conservatives and Liberals post WW1was one of the major factors in the disintegration of the once powerful Liberal Party, Tristan.
You really should read David Dutton on the National Liberals, Chris Cook, ‘The Age of Alignment’, and Michael Freeden ‘Liberals Divided’ to understand a one way street to oblivion and identity.
@Matt (Bristol)
You may be right. But where the opportunity is destruction of the Conseevative Party, and it’s replacement by a Libiral Democratic Party of the radical, I think our activists should hold their noses.
And I’m not so sure about the social conservative caveat. I suspect the lberal conservatives who ought to be (and did I. 2024) vote Lib Dem are less socially conservative than we might think.
That said I found a found a fair number of (mostly middle aged) women in the doorstep who found our Party’s position on LGBTQ+ issues troubling- for reasons I understood. (The seat remains Conservative held with us in a strong 2nd place)
@David Raw
Yes it was the alliance between liberal forces and conservative forces that led to the decline in the early 10th century Liberal Party. But liberalism was a powerful part of that alliance. (Consider Churchill for example – by the standards of his time certainly a liberal in my view)
Today the boot may be on the other foot: liberally minded people find it hard to be associated with either current conservative party, let alone “Reform”. That is the opportunity. Besides, it is liberals who must and will defeat”Reform”. Conservatives are not capable of it in my opinion.
@ Tristan Ward Lessons of History ?
Not advisable to ride on the back of an alligator, no matter how vulnerable and docile it may appear at first sight ………. and, more in the human domain, do you really want a repeat of 2015 at some future point ?
@ Alex,
“How many seats did the Lib Dems win simply because the Tory/Reform vote was split?”
“Probably not very many actually.”
“Actually” it was 25
There are some spreadsheets on here for anyone who is into doing a bit of number crunching.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10009/
@ Tristan Ward I’m afraid Winston Churchill came a thousand years later than, “the early 10th century Liberal Party”, and I’m afraid the good folk of Dundee sent him packing in 1922 for good reason, and he never went back there.
An article by Jim Tomlinson in the Historical Journal (2019) might be informative : “Winston Churchill’s 1922 General Election Defeat in Dundee” (Master’s thesis, Kings College London, 2009). It’s online.
@Peter Martin – How many seats did the Lib Dems win simply because the Tory/Reform was split? Yes we won seats because the Tory/Reform vote was split. However, to put all Tory and Reform voters into the same pool is a mistake. There are liberal Conservatives and One Nation Tories who could never stomach voting for a Nigel Farage centre-right led party – especially in the Blue Wall. So how many Liberal Tories could come over to us, could see our Vote Share and seats go up.
On the point about Starmer’s “social-democratic party”, I think you have a valid argument. Clearly tonight’s vote in the House of Commons could show a NUPES alliance of Socialists and Greens, but I wonder how they can reach out to the median voter in relation to their policies on NATO and Nuclear Weapons, for example.
@David Le Grice
I am not saying we should abandoned our principles, in pursuit for power. However, as a political party, our raison d’etre is to win power. Sometimes you have to make difficult decisions to get into power.
@Tristan Ward
I think your analysis is right that there is an enormous political opportunity for us to build on our fantastic success of 72 MPs.
Indeed it dates back to Joseph Chamberlain muncipal Liberalism back in the 1880’s, of the intertwined relationship between Conservatives and Liberals. Indeed Michael Heseltine was a National Liberal at one stage.
I suggest reading this Colin Kidd article, which touches on this: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2024/05/strange-death-of-conservatism
@Matt (Bristol)
I think our political axis is changing from a traditional left to right economic axis, to an authoritian to libertarian values spectrum. I think we are starting to see an overlap on economic and social values. I think we should accept Liberal Conservatives into our party, as we should accept Social Liberals into the party.
The 72 seats won by LibDems at the General Election was nearly a clean sweep of the achievable targets at that election. LibDems came second in only 27 seats – 25 in England and 2 in Wales – and of those only 11 seats were the winners less than 10% ahead (10 are held by the Conservative and 1 by Labour – the latter being a single improvemente, where Gordon Birtwistle added 15.4% to his share of the Burnley vote and came within 8.6% of winning back his seat). In most of the targets which were Labour seats the LibDem vote share fell – Sheffield Hallam and Bermondey & Old Southwark are examples. Almost all of the ten seats retained by the Conservatives were in Southern England rural shires -Godalming and Ash (1.6% behind), East Hampshire (2.5%), Farnham and Bordon (2.5%), North Dorset (3.1%), Romsey and Southampton North (4.4%), North Cotswolds (6.7%), Torridge and Tavistock (7.8%), Hamble Valley (8.9%), South West Hertfordshire (9.2%) – with South Shropshire (3.1%) as the sole seat outside Southern England.
@Matt (Bristol): Phillip Lee and Antoinette Sandbach are still active in the Lib Dems, as is Stephen Dorrell (who defected around the same time but wasn’t an MP then). We’ve actually had better luck with the defectors from the Tories than from Labour, none of whom appear to be involved in the Lib Dems anymore. Luciana Berger returned to Labour. Many of the defectors of the last Parliament have left active party politics altogether, some to politically restricted roles.
@Martin Gray: I remind you of my comment on another thread about how we saw off the BNP in Burnley in the 2000s. Defeating populists involves finding out the real grievances that lead people to vote for them. Often these have nothing to do with far right talking points. Pandering to populism is pointless, as people who vote for far-right populists because they actually agree with the philosophy are likely to vote for the real deal, not poll-chasers.
(continued) So we must ask where the seats are that LibDems can reasonably target for the 2029 General Election (and Starmer’s huge majority in the Commons means there is no prospect of anything less than a full five year term), beyond the foregoing brief list? Scotland is a particular problem in this regard; including a notable recovery of Charlie Kennedy’s seat of Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, the total of six wins left not a single seat where LibDems managed to hold second place, and only three seats where they managed to poll more than 10% of the vote – Gordon and Buchan (16.7%), Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (16.4%) and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (13%) – and the most of the other 48 Scottish seats the LibDems were relegated to fifth or sixth place
@Alex….I was reiterating what Wes said in a in-depth interview at the weekend as regards to delivering change . Finding out grievances is one thing – delivering on them is another – that was his point . As we’ve seen elsewhere across Europe too many progressive parties have failed to deliver any meaningful change . Reform finished 2nd to labour in a considerable number of seats in some of the poorest parts of England – areas where we – mostly lost our deposits…Like a lot of things over the last few weeks Streeting understands that & gets it totally…
@Rif Winfield
“….the total of six wins left not a single seat where LibDems managed to hold second place, and only three seats where they managed to poll more than 10% of the vote”
So the voters chose which party is best placed to beat SNP/tories.
So what? A week is a long time in politics.
Alex – I had the impression Philip Lee was at least semi-detached; I apologise. But it is true that the ‘radical’ liberal wing has worked hard to make it hard for any new defector who hints at a possible compromise with moderate social conservatives (and the roots of that are probably found in the failure of Tim Farron’s leadership). I’m sure, sadly, attacks would resurface if eg Lee were to seek nomination as a candidate again.
Adam Robertson – I think you’re right about the shift to a redefined liberal-authoritarian axis as the new defining model for politics. But I reserve the right not to like it. At the root of this is a triumph of a new individualism over communalism which challenges the historic ideologies of all the parties. I would probably now identify as a democratic communitarian consensualist, but that’s not really A Thing outside my head.
Christopher Haigh’s idea that Heseltine, Patten etc had potential to be a European-style Christian Democrat party is beguiling but flawed. Key hallmarks of Christian Democracy are concern for social unity, being willing to use consensualist democratic systems to keep both the radical left and right at bay, and encouraging incremental change rather than ‘leap-in-the-dark’ change.
No post-WW2 Tory had the real simultaneous fear of both dictatorship and revolution that ennervated the Christian Democrats in the post-war period, and that has always made them reckless about sudden change if they feel its in their own self-interest.
Agreed. There is a great opportunity this parliament to build a genuine alternative offer for government. The Lord Ashcroft data generated immediately after the election demonstrated that Labour and Liberal voters were very closely aligned on most issues, and that the largest share of tactical votes went to the Liberal Democrats. To build on 2024 momentum it is imperative that the Liberal Democrats clearly differentiate from the Labour party.
Two word response, “No Chance”.
Next election 180+ seats
@ Nonconformistradical……… ” So the voters chose which party is best placed to beat SNP/tories. So what? A week is a long time in politics”.
“So what ?” ……….. Could I suggest to Nonconformistradical that a more pertinent question to ask about Scotland is how many seats in recent years have been allowed to become ‘derelict’ with no active organisation or activists.
The answer will be uncomfortable……. just as I suspect it will be in England and Wales outside the Home Counties.
A week is NOT a long time in politics as far as winning an election is concerened. If you ask ANY of the 72 LibDems who won their election this month – each and every one of them had been campaigning in their constituency for a long, hard time. And most of the local teams in those seats had been actively promoting the LibDem message for years rather than months. As David Raw has indicated, no-one will win in a seat that has been derelict as regards organisation and activity. Almost every gain is won from the position of building up from having achieved a viable second place, or at least established a strong local campaigning record, as everyone knows who has fought in a successful campaign.
So at the moment to talk in terms of “180 seats” is simply mindless wishful thinking – there is just not the strength in the vast majority of parliamentary seats to run a winning campaign. That is not to say that seats currently with a poor record need to stay that way – but the activity, and the necessary resources, needs to start being put in NOW.
@David Raw
“that a more pertinent question to ask about Scotland is how many seats in recent years have been allowed to become ‘derelict’ with no active organisation or activists.”
Not just in Scotland; even in London we have no councillors (and so no councillor tithes) in 19 of the 32 Boroughs. One consequence of our very effective targeting is that over the whole of Great Britain we lost our £500 deposits in 228 seats (I crunched the voting data in an ElectionmapsUK spreadsheet). So that’s £114,000 lost by the local parties who are least able to afford it.
@ Adam,
“However, to put all Tory and Reform voters into the same pool is a mistake.”
It could be. There are also those Labour voters who would never vote Tory on principle but would be open to voting for one of the far right parties.
Also in our FPTP system there is always a pressure to vote against the candidate you’d least like to win, but you’d think might, rather than for the candidate you’d most like to win.
The spreadsheets on the link are pretty good and it’s not difficult to factor in whatever assumptions you might make about that. If anyone has any specific requests I could take a look.
@Rif Winfield
“there is just not the strength in the vast majority of parliamentary seats to run a winning campaign.”
I agree.
“That is not to say that seats currently with a poor record need to stay that way – but the activity, and the necessary resources, needs to start being put in NOW.”
Aren’t these 2 statements somewhat contradictory? If activity needs to start now who is going to start it?
And many people in low activity seats might/will have been helpiing in their nearest target seat. Who do people think is going to be working in low activity seats if they’re occupied helping elsewhere?
“even in London we have no councillors (and so no councillor tithes) in 19 of the 32 Boroughs” it’s not really ‘even’. London Boroughs have the highest proportion with no councillors of all authority types. The fact that we have all-up elections doesn’t help but “even in London” there are nine boroughs where we have councillors and no MPs. There are areas we could win the majority of councillors in 2031 and the MP in 2033 against an unpopular Labour government.
@Alex Macfie – You are pertinent to the fact that there are many Liberal Conservatives who should be welcomed into our party. All Liberals should be made feel welcome, rather than tolerated. The overreaction to David Gauke speaking potentially at Liberal Democrat Conference at a Liberal Reform event, is completely unjustified. Of course, people are welcome to disagree with him but for us to build our voter coalition, we have to engage with individuals such as David Gauke. We only missed out on his old seat by 4,500 votes approximately.
@Matt (Bristol) – I think the Political Compass is changing to reflect both the left to right axis, but is more being aligned on an authoritarian to libertarian scale. I think culturally we need to win over those in the centre of both left libertarians but also right libertarians. That means reaching out to Gauke, Heseltine. David Gauke has not written a book called A Case for the centre-right for the sake of it. Depending on what happens on the Conservative Leadership Election, a new party could well be formed. As David Steel said it doesn’t matter who comes 3rd or 4th, neither don’t win. So we have to avoid a new party being created, which will be aiming for the same coalition of voters as ourselves.
@Peter Martin – I think your points should be explored more. I do think there are individuals who switch between Labour and Reform. I worry about Reform for the next County Council Elections – they will do well in my county, but all along the East Coast stretching from Lincolnshire to Kent.
I think we need a honest debate about the electoral system, as although I agree with the party policy of STV, it might be AMS may need to be implemented as an agreement. The parties elected reminded me of an AMS Parliament rather than a STV one. People wanted Labour in (but not necessarily by themselves), but rather voted for a Social Liberal Government, but have got a Social Democratic Government.
@ Adam Robertson, you say, “You are pertinent to the fact that there are many Liberal Conservatives who should be welcomed into our party. All Liberals should be made feel welcome, rather than tolerated…….. That means reaching out to Gauke, Heseltine”.
Adam, for my part I suspect the days and hopes of a right of centre Lib Dem Party evaporated back in 2015……. the electorate gave their verdict, and I also suspect any attempt to repeat that project with a form of liberal conservatism will lead to an exit of many more radical Lib Dems.
There’s a useful history lesson in this matter …… take a good look at the fate of the National Liberals led by Walter Runciman and John Simon way back in the 1930’s. They were soon swallowed up by the Tories and faded away. As for Heseltine, good luck with that one…… he’s a tribal Tory.
I do find it amusing that those on the right of the Lib Dems who see free trade as a key intersection between the Tory ideology and the Liberal one, set up the National Liberals as some kind of tradition to be revived.
The Nat Lib split started to form in 1929, when there were anti-socialist elements in the Liberals who would not prop up Ramsay Macdonald’s government (despite it being committed to free trade) and wanted to side with the Tories (despite them being committed to trade barriers). This continued when Ramsay Macdonald split from his own party and formed the National Government. The ‘official’ leadership wanted to do all they could to keep the Nat Govt leadership heading toward free trade, and were prepared to threaten to leave the coalition when Tory protectionist ideas surfaced, and the Nat Libs were prepared to sacrifice Free Trade if it meant keeping the Labour left out and the government stable.
By contract modern Tory views of ‘free trade’ derive not from the Nat Libs but largely from Thatcher, the IEA and Hayek in the 60s and 70s, and don’t necessarily have continuity with the views of free trade pre-WW2 than animated historic British liberalism.
Hayek’s distrust of democracy as an unwelcome brake on the moral rectitude of an informed right-thinking neoliberal leader is very Thatcher and very modern Tory and not (historically) very Lib Dem (or very Euro-style Christian Democrat, come to that).
@ Matt, Bristol, You’re right up to a point, Matt, when you say, “keeping the Labour left out and the government stable”.
Anti-Socialism was indeed a major driver in 1920’s Liberal disintegration, especially in Scotland, though there was another element in the drift to the right amongst the National Liberals – the desire to hold office when they realised it was something the Liberal Party could no longer offer.
Prof. David Dutton’s book, ‘Liberals in Schism’, is most informative on all of this.
As to my generation (back in 1962) the refreshing thing for many of us was the new Liberal radicalism of Jo Grimond…… a highly articulate Leader with wit, brains and charisma. Warming up cold Tory porridge is never exciting or attractive.
To make progress as a party, we need to become a broad church.
I consider myself to be on the libertarian left of the party. But I would be absolutely delighted if former or current liberal-minded Tories came over to us. We need to be less inward-looking and clannish.
If we can’t tolerate differences amongst ourselves, how can we be preaching “tolerance” to the wider world. Some of the unfriendly responses to real and potential defectors have smacked of insecure narrow-mindedness.
@Chris Moore…
Exactly Chris…After this week’s court case & a potential another in the pipeline + a employment tribunal coming up . The lack of tolerance – of some on the progressive left , is not befitting of a political party with liberal in its name …
@ Martin Gray “After this week’s court case”…
And which court case might that be ?
@Matt (Bristol) – We should not stop those who believe in Classical Liberalism, not to be a member of the party. After all, freedom is the leading principle of liberal politics. There should be no barriers on what kind of Liberal, you should be to join the party.
Margaret Thatcher believed in atomic individualism, which is slightly deviating from Liberalism. Atomic Individualism is about self-interest, where as in liberalism we believe you should be free in what you do, before you cause harm to others.
@Chris – I agree that the party has got to be outward looking, if we are to be a Party of Government. This is why we have to look at the Canadian Liberal Party or Macron have done. I accept they are not popular now, but they have been successful Liberal Movements in the recent past.
@ Adam Robertson. I don’t know whether you remember Margaret Thatcher, Mr Robertson, but I most certainly do. She was the most destructive of the eighteen Prime Ministers who have held office in my life time.
@David Raw …For a grocers daughter from a Lincolnshire market town to get to Oxford in the 40’s was in itself a remarkable achievement. To go on and hold the highest office in the land on three consecutive occasions was an incredible feat .. Intellectually she towers above all those that have followed ..Not my cup of tea – but credit where credits due …Plenty voted for her Dave…
@David Raw – Yes, Margaret Thatcher is a bit of a marmite PM. Whilst is down to her I was unable to gain a green card and then have my UK business fold (*), she did play a major role in the creation of the Single Market and EU; organisations you and I wished the UK to be an active member of…
(*) I can now thank Farage, Johnson et al for making my efforts to build a UK based IT consultancy serving a range of EU customers pointless; and the Conservatives call themselves the party of business…
Margaret Thatcher was science-educated, unlike most high-ranking conservative politicians. She took action about the ozone hole and would probably have been active about climate change.
Britain certainly needs a mainstream, centre-right Party but we can’t be that Party.
We can take some of those Voters who only vote Conservative because its the main alternative to Labour but we can’t stop being Liberals & Social Democrats.
We have a real chance to replace The Tories as the Official Opposition in 2029 but we won’t do it by moving Right or by pretending to be farther Right than we are.
If you are going to advocate that the Lib Dems become a right of centre political party, you need to to be clear what you mean by that.
What would you privatise?
What taxes would you cut?
What public services would you cut?
The answers were never good when the Lib Dems were in Coalition, and I can’t think of any now. There is a reason why that politics has gone. Noone wants it anymore. It is often pointed out that the Tory party will not become more centrist because the Tory members would not vote for such a candidate. And that is the point. There is no grassroots movement out there that will campaign for a moderate right of centre political party.
Much depends on how Labour develops and is perceived over its present term and how the Conservatives and Reform adjust to the new reality. I would prefer that we find a gap in the centre. Failing that we will need to rely on our market, freedom and democratic values though whether they will provide sufficient votes to allow us to challenge for government I don’t know.
@Geoffrey
“There is no grassroots movement out there that will campaign for a moderate right of centre political party.”
I simply don’t agree. There will always be a place for a party that wants to limit taxes (and by extension is suspicious of the the power of the state – a key liberal identifer) because ultimately the electorate will not pay taxes that it sees as too high. And there will always be a place for a party that sees the market and free trade (both properly regulated/controlled) as a key part of its offering because those are essential tools is creating wealth/raising living standards. Check out the preamble to the constitution.
There may be limited demand in the UK for that right now – but that’s because the Tories have made a right royal mess of it and added Brexit on top. I don’t know about you but I detected little enthusiasm for Labour in the blue wall seats I campaigned in at the election, unlike 1997.
I think this may be one of the cases mentioned in a previous post
https://archive.ph/2024.07.28-101502/https:/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/27/lib-dems-admit-discriminating-against-gender-critical-candi/
Something is going wrong somewhere.
@David Raw – I am not advocating for us to follow full throttle Thatcherism. As I said atomic individualism deviates from Liberalism. Thatcher believed in atomic individualism, not Classical Liberalism. I do accept that there some similarities.
I agree with Roland, she helped to create the Single Market as part of the Bloody British Rebate Settlement of the 1980’s at Fouintainbleau. As Liberal Democrats we should be aiming to get back into the Single Market.
@Paul Barker – I am not advocating for us to be mainstream centre-right party, I am advocating us to be a Liberal Party such as Macron’s Renaissance or Trudeau’s Liberals in Canada. We have to attract both centre-right and centre-left liberals into the party, to create a big Liberal Movement across the country.
We have to ensure that there is a credible opposition to Labour, and also a government-in-waiting. We have to think outside the mentality of a third party, and believe we can project our policies and values into Government.
@Geoffrey Payne – I am campaigning for us to be a big Liberal Party. Therefore, a Liberal Party not a centre-right or centre-left party. I do accept that there is a difference between Liberalism and Centrism, which should be explored more closely and should be an article on LDV.
We should be proud of the achievements what Nick Clegg did in Coalition such as the lifting of the income threshold, Pupil Premium and Equal Marriage. If it was not for the Liberal Democrats, then none of these would have happened.
Might I suggest that in the economic sphere, the centrist role we should aspire to should be to defend freedom of choice – including defending the market economy, free competition, etc. while at the same time being willing to accept higher taxes where necessary to pay for investment and good public services, and also good environmental standards. That accords perfectly with liberal principles, and distinguishes us from the Tories who (rightly) support capitalism and the market economy but (wrongly) marry that with low taxes and avoiding action on climate change.