There seems to be a naïve assumption that all the problems of the Liberal Democrats will be solved by a decapitation strategy.
During my lifetime there have been 12 Liberal and LibDem leaders and during that same period we have always been told that voters don’t understand what we stand for. Yes, occasionally, voters do identify with something we stand for. Our opposition to the Iraq war for example or our support for the EU. They have also recognised stupidity like abandoning our firm pledge on tuition fees.
In 2024 I suspect our success was mainly down to being the best opportunity to kick out the Tories than any real understanding of what we stood for.
All my life, since the death of the News Chronicle, we have had no national media to support our cause. In 2010, the Guardian did encourage people to vote LibDem, only to withdraw that support the minute the coalition was agreed. All we ever see is ridicule, disagreement and, more usually, silence.
Is that going to change if we have a new leader? I very much doubt it. The Tories changed their leader 6 times between 2005 and 2024. That didn’t prevent the worst defeat in their history in 2024. The Greens chose a new leader, Polanski, and enjoyed short term success before dropping back down the polls and losing the HSP by-election. Labour has had 6 leaders since 2005, but has that created a really successful party? The jury is still out on their latest change. We have had 5 leaders since Charles Kennedy. Our current leader led us to our best election result in 100 years but apparently that’s not good enough.
I suggest that the leader is not the only factor in getting our message across. We have never found a way to express our ideology and policies in a simple way, perhaps because it isn’t possible to do that. Leaders can only project what the party stands for if the party decides what that message is.
We need to think about an effective way of telling people about us, not constantly seek to blame and change the leader in a desperate attempt to get our message across.
Some clearly think a more charismatic leader might do better. Perhaps the most successful Labour PM was Clement Attlee a man widely recognised as having no charisma at all. He did however know what he wanted and largely delivered it.
Be careful what you wish for, is always sound advice. Changing our leader, followed by a possibly divisive leadership vote is just a distraction from campaigning. We should avoid it. A decapitation strategy is not the answer to the party’s perceived problems.
* Dr Michael Taylor has been a party member since 1964. He is currently living in Greece.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Caroline Voaden on what Shovegate tells us about Nigel Farage
The historic link of the monarchy to the slave trade
Cllr Kieran Dams, previously with Greens, joins Lib Dems
Oh no, it can't be Christmas already.
Jonathan Parry
Mick Taylor
expats
David Evans
Judy Abel
8 Comments
Interesting 2019 article (bit randomly on the University of Liverpool website):
‘Jo Swinson… is being portrayed as the epitome of change politics in the UK.’
And we all know how that went.
The article nails it: ‘The announcement… hardly registered on the UK politics Richter Scale. Today the news will be consigned to the waste bin…
‘And therein lies the perpetual problem for the Liberal Democrats, they are… the outsider party continually fighting for media attention.’
Hard to imagine another new leader making any difference to that.
I’m in 100% agreement, Michael. We need the distraction of a leadership contest like a hole in the head.
What we do need is a firm and clear declaration that our unique priority is the protection and improvement of liberal democracy, which is in grave danger not only in this country, but in other parts of Europe, and on life support in the United States and India. We can’t rely on Labour to protect it (eg no cap on party donations) or the Tories (eg making it harder to vote) and the Greens have, or ought to have, their own priority (being Green.)
Much of our present success has depended on being “like like Tories but nicer.” That simply doesn’t resonate in large parts of the country: the Far West , Yorkshire, the Noth East.
Say what we are, LIBERALS, and spell out what that involves: those messages need to resonate throughout the whole country, (not to mentation the rest of the world.)
“Say what we are, LIBERALS, and spell out what that involves: those messages need to resonate throughout the whole country”
But they just don’t. Shouting them louder won’t help. Changing the spokesperson won’t help. Sure, the Press don’t help, but that’s because they can’t find much news value in what the Lib Dems are saying.
Not long ago, Roz Savage and below-the-line posters did propose some real and radical ideas that could have gained traction:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/roz-savage-mp-writes-liberalism-is-having-a-moment-but-does-it-have-a-future-80302.html
But then Andy Burnham came along and grasped many of these important nettles. Plenty of commenters on this website have recognised that the best Lib Dem response should be applause and critical support. Davey has instead made carping criticisms, and I don’t see any other leading Lib Dems doing any better.
I feel the problem is wider than our party. Since the expenses scandal of 2009 our leaders have been less and less impressive; a winnowing of statesmanship. A loss of belief in the noble calling of representative of the people
Now we have a generation of charlatans, fools and the dull, an endless procession of those who have no vision and no ambition other than for themselves. They are easily bought and easily fooled.
Where are the Paddys, the Robin Cooks, the Heseltines, the Mo Mowlams now?
Throwing one’s hands up and saying that voters always had trouble knowing what we stand for is really missing the wood for the trees. As a smaller party that’s always going to be the case, but the extent to which voters have a sense what we stand for still varies allot over time. I would argue that people were finally starting to get a sense of who we were during the 2010 election, and we were doing allot more to convey who we were at the time than we’ve ever done since. Or behaviour right after completely undid this unfortunately.
But the leader is instrumental here. Imagine if we had a timid leader in 2003 and failed to oppose the Iraq war. Imagine if instead of Paddy we had a leader that didn’t bother to draw attention to the situation in Bosnia or champion the rights of Hong Kongers out of thinking that voters in target seats probably didn’t care.
Indeed there have been a number of issues in the last few years we could have used to gain support or at least recruit a load of members and activists over. Gaza in particular is like Iraq + Bosnia x2, yet has completely passed us by.
Also Trans rights, even the online safety act (if we’d opposed it) potentially could also have given us at least a slight boost.
I agree that Ed should be supportive and grown up about Andy Burnham’s sensible suggestion of more cooperation between parties. we agree with Labour on plenty of progressive issues. Also ahem, getting new charismatic leaders does seem to help other parties. Where are Layla and Josh in all this?
@David Allen. Thank you for alerting us to Roz Savage’s excellent post. That, and the subsequent comments, show that the party’s anoraks are well aware of what we stand for. To my mind her key phrase is:”We are good at being reasonable, evidence-led and practical. But competence is not a destination. Liberalism should feel radical.” We must watch out for the Compass article.
But it is not a question of “shouting louder:” more a matter of telling it at all. We long ago realised that, since we couldn’t rely on the national media to put our message across, we should do it ourselves. Hence our ubiquitous leaflets. But how many of the leaflets in the 72 constituencies where we hold the parliamentary seat, or the many more where we are simply “also rans,” contain any mention of our core beliefs? How many are simply litanies of local beefs – highly important for attracting attention and a key step to preserving Liberal Democracy, but only a step.
In my area, overwhelmingly “Leave” in the Referendum, we never dare mention we were and are staunch supporters of the EU for fear of putting people off. We not only need bold and courageous leaders, we need committed activists in every area to “tell it like it is.” And we won’t attract them unless we tell them.
Thanks for the mainly positive comments.
@DavidLeGrice. I think you missed the point. The whole thurst of my argument is that it’s not solely down to the leader to solve the identification problem and that we’ve had 12 leaders who generally didn’t. Also that changing the leader isn’t the solution.
Events have overtaken us anyway as the PLDP have resoundingly dismissed a challenge to the leader, so for the moment the whole issue is dead.
Let’s see what the promised changes amount to…