31 Comments

• James 30th Jan '18 - 11:45am

  An interesting article, and I will give it some proper reflection at some point today.

  However, just one thing I will say at first glance – you appear to have done the exact thing you were criticising earlier!

  “The Liberal Democrats are about true freedom, plus localism”

  Why does there need to be a plus something completely different tacked on at the end?

• David Evershed 30th Jan '18 - 11:51am

  We need to be clear that liberalism is about economic and business freedoms as well as social and individual freedoms. So free markets and (global) free trade with the usual caveats about not harming others.

• David Raw 30th Jan '18 - 12:07pm

  I suppose a homeless person sitting in the Strand is free to go into the Savoy to have lunch if he/she was given a few hundred pounds as a donation (plus a tie ?).

• Confused Lib 30th Jan '18 - 12:24pm

  Decentralisation of power has always been a massively consistent liberal policy, ranging from pushing Home Rule as much as possible with the British Empire all the way to now, where we place heavy emphasis on local governance. Champion it since other parties are against decentralisation and since it aligns with our views anyway. UK and English federalism is one key area where we should draw up proper plans for and push it along with pro-EU policies; from what I’ve seen, the people that are heavily anti-EU are the ones that have been forgotten by Westminster. What better way to acknowledge them than to say Westminster will no longer dictate everything and they can make their own decisions on what they feel is best? Couple this with PR and I think we’re onto a winning liberal message. The German system could act as a good base template for UK federalism.

• Lorenzo Cherin 30th Jan '18 - 12:38pm

  An intelligent piece that tries to do what is a regular preoccupation in politics when not doing well at a task, less so when doing rather well at it.

  The preoccupation is succeeding or trying to.

  The task is winning or trying to.

  The basis of politics is a party system. The received wisdom is in our two party system, smaller or third parties cannot break through.

  I do believe the SDP are sited thus.

  But it would be possible to break through with a party untainted, with a message undaunted, and a dynamism undeniable! We have none of this!

  Labour under Corbyn is doing what they did under Blair.

  I was there then. People genuine in their enthusiasm.

  We have the same here but not the vehicle because of trust and relevance .

  The anti Brexit is too much. It is ruining all the original ideas. It is very much obscuring what Andy attempting it here, cannot succeed at therefore.

  Freedom plus localism does not work.

  Freedom is what we want , but connection is what we crave too. And in an internet age, both are united by this invention.

  Freedom of expression with the ability and potential to reach beyond the mere local terrain to the national, international domain.

  I have no more interest in my back yard or what is just beyond it, if it is uninteresting.
  I am very interested in what they might be doing or what might be going on miles away if interesting.

  Power is for individual people not a locality. It is for people trying to connect, beyond the local too.

  There is more to reality than slogans even if we need those too.

• Andy Cooke 30th Jan '18 - 12:38pm

  @ James,
  “However, just one thing I will say at first glance – you appear to have done the exact thing you were criticising earlier!

  “The Liberal Democrats are about true freedom, plus localism”

  Why does there need to be a plus something completely different tacked on at the end?”
  It was mainly because the other two parties tended to be associated with one major thread, plus a lesser one that they would sometimes publicly compromise on. When I thought of it, we also had a secondary thread – localism. It’s also the case that it’s sometimes easier to remember a two-fer than a one-off (the second element gives an extra route to recall)

  @David Evershed and @David Raw – exactly. That’s why true freedom involves both positive and negative freedoms – the freedom to be what you could be. Freedom from poverty and ignorance are as fundamental to real freedom as freedom from interference. If you have no choices, you have no freedom of choice. Once we can get talking about freedom at all, we can elaborate – when it’s fully embedded with us.

• P.J. 30th Jan '18 - 1:36pm

  I seem to remember going though this ‘Freedom’ thing at great length last year sometime. I’m starting to wonder whether this constant search for Identity is a symptom of something more fundamentally amiss, leadership, communication channels, structures maybe. I don’t know but it would seem that there a lot of party members out there who seem very confused.

• Andy Cooke 30th Jan '18 - 1:55pm

  @P.J. – that reinforces the point. If WE’RE not clear on who we are and what we stand for, what chance have the electorate got?
  If we need to work it out among ourselves, we’d better do it as a top priority.

• Eddie Sammon 30th Jan '18 - 2:09pm

  The point about freedom vs state control is a good one. I’m not a libertarian, but my work from home business enables me to live almost anywhere with a similar time zone and you just don’t get that kind of freedom in the public sector. Perhaps we could encourage more flexible and remote working, whether in the private or public sector.

• Peter Martin 30th Jan '18 - 2:09pm

  The electors are justifiably cynical about all this kind of stuff. They’ve heard it all before.
  The NHS has a budget of about £125 bn p.a. The Lib Dem policy is to raise income tax by 1p to raise an extra £6 bn pa. It’s more likely to depress the economy and produce little, if any, extra revenue IMO.

  But even so, an extra £6 bn, or about 5%, may help keep the wheels turning for another couple of years but what then? NHS staff could well be overdue a pay rise so that extra money, even if you manage to raise it, could be spent doing nothing else except giving them that rise.

  So some more radical thinking is really called for to solve the problem.

• Joe Otten 30th Jan '18 - 2:14pm

  I quite like Lorenzo’s freedom with connection.

  Connection is perhaps what is suggested by community in “liberty, equality and community” – it is a better interpretation than interpreting community as localism.

  I do think that all parties struggle to define what they stand for in ideological terms. The Labour Party is perhaps, at least until now, defined by the idea that socialism represents the right sort of sentiment, and we ought therefore to be able to do something kind of in that direction, while recognising that actual socialism doesn’t work. The Conservatives often take pride in a rejection of ideology verging on the anti-intellectual.

  Compared to this, I think we are more clearly united around some key positive values than the others are and instinctively it seems that it ought to be easier than it is to communicate this and win support, at least from people who are interested in that kind of abstraction. Core vote strategy.

  But I maintain a sneaking admiration for the greater number of voters for whom voting is less holy and more practical. Communicating with them is harder and more important. The enough votes to win strategy.

• Peter Martin 30th Jan '18 - 2:34pm

  @ Joe Otten,

  “I do think that all parties struggle to define what they stand for in ideological terms.”

  Possibly, but I’m not sure why. It’s not that difficult. The Labour Party stands for socialism. The Tories want free-wheeling capitalism. The electorate mainly want something in the middle. The managed capitalism of a mixed economy to ensure a fair society with much higher levels of equal opportunity, if not equality of outcome, for all.

  In other words they want something in between. The Lib Dems are supposed to be the party of the centre. So what’s the problem? Managed capitalism essentially means the application Keynesian economics rather than the neoliberalism we’ve seen from all parties in recent decades.

  Keynes was, or so I understand, a member of the Liberal Party. So there should be no ideological conflict in getting back to Liberal Party basics.

• P.J. 30th Jan '18 - 2:53pm

  @Peter Martin
  Thank you.
  I would add as a consequence of that, Labor want power to be held by state institution. Tories want power in the hands of capital holders and the LibDems want to empower the ordinary citizen.
  So let’s get some black and white policies around that and go and sell it.

• David Evans 30th Jan '18 - 3:13pm

  Andy, you ask “What are we about? That’s what we need people to know.” and come to the conclusion that the answer is “The Liberal Democrats… are about true freedom, plus localism,” – and this as all very worthy and good.

  Your answer comes straight from your belief in the party and its values of liberty and community. However, it doesn’t answer the real problem the party faces. The problem for Lib Dems is that for the vast majority of the people, lack of liberty and freedom is not a problem. What is a problem is how to make ends meet; will my daughter get a good job; the commute into work (cost and time); and maybe is my job/pension safe and is Brexit a good idea etc. i.e. Equality in the simple economic sense.

  To most people what we say here is quite simply of no consequence whatsoever.

  We all have to understand that to influence people, we have to start from where they are, not where do we want them to go. Most people begin with “What do I know?”; then go on to “What else do I want to know?”; rarely go so far as “What do I need to know?” and never “What do they want me to know?”

  This is the nub of the party’s problem. Most people know we were a medium sized party. They know we were in coalition. They know that the coalition made a lot of cuts to services and benefits which they didn’t think we would do (Conservatives think it was good, Labour think it bad). They know we broke a pledge, and they know that we were punished and now have no power and are inconsequential compared to what we were.

  So – were big(ish), now small. Cut services (like the Cons). Broke a pledge (Trust). No power (Unimportant). Don’t hear anything from them now in the news (Definitely unimportant). Why bother looking any further? That is where most people stop.

  What we need is not a clear idea of what we are, we can all spend forever discussion that again and again. What we need is a plan to make us relevant to the public at large, to the issues that are important to them, to take them from “untrustworthy and unimportant” to “I trust these guys and they are making a difference.”

  We have to start from where people are and work out what we need to do to get them to notice and then believe in them, but fine ideals and more yet policy discussions about minority issues are not the answer.

• Sheila Gee 30th Jan '18 - 3:20pm

  To rally ‘troops’ [voters], behind your cause, you have to declare what it is you are ‘at WAR with’, plus what the view should look like at the top of your ‘Victory hill’

  By way of example:

  Labour are at war with poverty, and for liberating the powerless from servitude.
  Conservatives are at war with economic inefficiencies, and for a stable balanced capitalist society.
  Greens are at war with pollution, and for a sustainable future lifestyle.
  Ukip are at war with unelected EU bureaucracy, and for UK autonomy and self-determination.
  Even the more obscure Pirate Party UK, are at war with closed Corporate monopolies, and for an open-source society and economy.

  So I guess the trick to get voters ‘mobilised’ behind your cause, they first have to be clear what Liberals are ‘at war with’, and what a liberal ‘victory’ would look like?
  —-
  Interestingly, I took a look at the Pirate Party UK manifesto [pdf], which they used for the 2017 GE. Skipping past the first of its 25 pages, its policies frankly, look astonishingly ‘liberal’, but redeveloped for a digital age. They even have a decent stab at LVT and Citizens income. Well worth a look.

• Phil Wainewright 30th Jan '18 - 3:29pm

  I agree there needs to be a golden thread, a framework that we hang all of our policies off and constantly reiterate each time we promote them. But I don’t think freedom on its own captures it precisely (which of course is why you tagged on, ‘but localism’).

  I believe our golden thread intertwines individual freedom with a belief in working with others. Nick Clegg (yes I know but don’t shoot the messenger) summed it up succinctly in his resignation speech in one simple phrase: “We are stronger together and weaker apart.” Neither anonymously collective (as in socialism) or individually free-for-all (as in capitalism), but respecting and valuing what we can achieve together when each of us is able to be who we are.

• Andy Cooke 30th Jan '18 - 4:05pm

  @P.J. – I fully agree. We are about empowering the ordinary citizen – giving them positive freedoms (freedom to do….) as well as negative ones (freedom from…)

  @David Evans – The key point of full freedom (positive as well as negative) is that no-one is really free if their choices are constrained: freedom IS having choices. Youngsters who have no choice to own a house, workers who have no choice to get a job at the end of an expensive commute, and so on. Possibly “The Lib Dems are the party to give you more choices”? It doesn’t really skip off the tongue, though. Hmmm.
  I do, however, strongly believe that clarifying and promoting our identity is fundamental to reconnecting with the public again. Knowing and believing our identity is needed before they will give us trust – otherwise we just look like unprincipled opportunists (and who trusts people like that?)

  @Sheila Gee – I guess we’re at war with that which reduces individual agency and choice – but I can’t think of a snazzy term to encompass that off the top of my head. Ideas?

  @Phil Wainewright – I agree that working with others improves the choices (and therefore overall freedom) of all – is there an easy and catchy way to summarise that?

• Dav 30th Jan '18 - 4:11pm

  The Lib Dems are for freedom

  You have heard of Hoggart’s law of the nonsensical inverse, right?

  If you say something that no sane politician would disagree with (can you imagine any Conservative, or any Labour MP, standing up and saying ‘Our party is against true freedom!’?) then you haven’t really said anything at all.

• Andy Cooke 30th Jan '18 - 4:28pm

  @Dav,
  Despite that, Labour manage to strongly portray themselves as being the party of fairness and the Tories portray themselves as the party of common sense. All parties will claim they’re in favour of fairness, common sense, and freedom alike, but all will compromise on some elements in favour of their coremost value: the other two parties will compromise on freedom (reducing the choices and agency of the individual) quite readily.

  Labour will compromise on freedom for what they see as fairness (“You may not buy or sell whatever-it-is because we wish to impose equality”)

  The Conservatives will compromise on freedom for what they see as common-sense, or traditionalism (“You may not live in this way because it is non-traditional”)

  We may compromise on tradition or imposing equality for what we see as the best way to maximise freedom and agency (“You can marry your own sex regardless of tradition”, “You may buy or sell whatever you like as long as no-one falls below a certain level”)

• David Evans 30th Jan '18 - 5:23pm

  Andy, The key point of full freedom is that for most people they have as much of it as they want. As I implied, lots of Liberals love talking about freedom (for ever and ever), and your post is sadly another example of it. But to the public, it just proves we really are irrelevant to them.

  It’s your choice.

• Fiona 30th Jan '18 - 7:17pm

  Some interesting thoughts here, and I agree that we need to create a connection beyond a knowledge of our more high profile policies to have a general swell in our polling, and the idea of freedom is a compelling one, especially when explained as above. However, as others point out, most of the British public don’t feel that a lack of freedom is a problem, and those that do complain about it are often objecting to the “PC Brigade” who stop them from having fun by not being allowed to be racist, sexist and homophobic anymore.

  Some thought would need to be given to what we mean by freedom and what the public means by it, and what it is we value. I would argue that the NHS gives us a lot more freedom than most of us appreciate. When I hear stories about workers in the US feeling they cannot change jobs, never mind become self-employed, because they couldn’t afford the health insurance that would cover their child’s asthma, then the freedom offered by the NHS becomes clear, but have we become so used to it that we don’t realise just how liberating it is to know that wherever we travel in the UK, we know that should be get into medical trouble, we can get all of the necessary treatment without having to jump through hoops or phone insurance companies.

  In that sense, a penny on income tax to preserve the NHS is about treasuring that freedom. I know this is going a bit off-topic, but I can’t let the suggestion that spending on the NHS would depress the economy. Some of that extra money might well go on staff costs, but given that NHS staff, like most public sector staff, are more likely than not to spend within the local economy, then it’s the ongoing pay suppression that is bad for the economy. More to the point, NHS staff deserve a pay rise at least in line with inflation after all of these years, and if we don’t provide it, then we’ll cause huge and long-term damage to the NHS.

• Katharine Pindar 31st Jan '18 - 8:56am

  “What is freedom? A word. What is in that word? Freedom. What is that freedom? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. Tis insensible, then? Yes, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I’ll none of it. Freedom is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism.”

  Couldn’t resist that. Of course, Falstaff in Henry IV Part 1 was musing about Honour. But I think he would have had a go at freedom too! As posters above such as Lorenzo and David Evans have suggested, you always need another word or two with it on what people need. I would offer, Peace, and Security.

• Dav 31st Jan '18 - 9:16am

  Despite that, Labour manage to strongly portray themselves as being the party of fairness and the Tories portray themselves as the party of common sense

  It’s not despite that. Labour manage to portray themselves as the party of equality (not really ‘fairness’) and you can imagine a politician saying, ‘no, we’re against equality, at least equality of outcome, as long as everyone has the same chances then what they do with them is up to them and the results won’t be equal’. Hence the reverse of ‘equality’ is not nonsensical, so saying you are for equality is not saying nothing.

  And the Conservatives portray themselves as the party of common sense but again you can imagine a Labour MP saying, ‘No, we’re not for “common sense” because if “common sense” means leaving markets alone so that the rich can keep getting richer then we will have none of it’.

  So both ‘equality’ and ‘common sense’ can imaginably be argued against.

  But who would come out and argue, in those terms, against ‘freedom’? Indeed both the Conservatives and Labour would say they were in favour of freedom and the other was against: conservatives that they are in favour of the freedom to do what you want and succeed or fail, and against imposing equality or outcome which would limit freedom; Labour that they are for the freedom that everybody will have the same power and choices and against allowing inequality which would limit freedom.

  So given that every party would claim to be ‘for freedom’, why does that make the Lib Dems distinctive? You’d have to argue that when the other parties say they are for freedom they don’t really mean it, and then explain what you mean.

  And when you’re explaining, you’re losing.

• Barnaby 31st Jan '18 - 10:42am

  Freedom what an interesting concept.

  It would seem that representative democracy across the piste in the UK, is by default idealogically opposed to ‘freedom’ on the simply premise it wants people to comply to a set of rules that the idealogues themselves perceive as acceptable.

  If a political party believed in freedom and democracy, then they would not consider populism a dirty word, they would embrace its concerns, rather than try to undermine them. Such a party would never consider using their unrepresentative presence in an undemocratic forum like the House of Lords, which in other circumstances they abhor to overturn a democratic decision.

  Why can’t the LibDems garner support?

  It is simple enough, the party just does not reflect, or seemingly want to reflect the views of the majority in this country. For example, anybody passing by would notice that the site has a constant stream of articles on topics such as sexual identity, which at best whatever its merit probably preoccupies the minds of less than the 5-7% of the support the party achieves in the polls. However on issues such as technical education for the millions of young people who don’t or can’t go to university, the silence is deafening.

  To use an old Conservative idiom, to win support you have to be a broad church.

  I’m afraid the LibDem church is lacking a nave, both side aisles, both transepts, appearing to confine itself the chancel alone, where it preaches its own doctrine to itself.

• Peter Watson 31st Jan '18 - 11:19am

  “The Lib Dems are for freedom: making everyone free to be whatever they can be.”
  Arguably “making everyone free” is a contradiction in terms, so perhaps “allowing everyone to be free” is better, but it is still not obvious what it means. The f-word (freedom this time, not fees!) is not much more helpful than the l-word (liberalism) in clarifying what Lib Dems are for.

  I have long forgotten who on this site originally made me aware of the difference between “freedom from” and “freedom to”, but I am grateful and it is an important distinction that I am reminded of every time this sort of conversation arises.
  This article seems to prioritise “freedom to” but for me the Lib Dems always seemed to be more about “freedom from”, and the oft-quoted extract from the preamble to the party’s constitution seems to emphasise freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity.

  Nobody can be free from “discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation” if others are free to discriminate based upon all of those things, and perhaps intervention is needed to balance or trade-off one individual’s freedoms against another’s. So being “for freedom” does not mean much in and of itself.

  Apparently, “the Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and they “champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals”. So rather than pick any single word to describe the party, perhaps it should always be a gang of three: “fair, free and open” or “liberty, equality and community” or “freedom, dignity and well-being”.

• Peter Hirst 31st Jan '18 - 3:48pm

  Do liberalism and localism gel? If by localism you mean the freedom to influence decisions that effect you it does. But surely everything effects everyone so you need to insert the word “significantly” I think they do so localism is part of freedom.

• Katharine Pindar 31st Jan '18 - 10:13pm

  Barnaby, no party in this country represents the views of a majority in this country. Even parties that win a majority of seats in a general election do so with less than 50% of the votes. In the last general election the two major parties both got more than 40% of the vote, and each of them represents both Leavers and Remainers from the Referendum result. We as a party tend to represent outward-looking open-minded people with a sense of social justice, while the Tories tend to represent the people who care most for stability, conservatism and national rights.

• Stuart Kelly 1st Feb '18 - 4:32pm

  The starting point is The preamble-
  The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

  I like the ‘what are we at war with’ analogy above from Shiela Gee

  So what are we at war with? – poverty, ignorance and conformity.

  What do we want? – fair, free and open society

  What are our values? – liberty, equality and community

  At any given time I guess we can pick any one of these groups of 3 to illustrate our values; my own preference is to group the identified problems to be tackled under one heading I think poverty, ignorance and conformity are fundamental injustices.

  The point about other parties being able to say they are for fairness and freedom is well made by contributors so what about ‘open’ can the others realistically don the apparel for an open society – I think not.

  I like the word Liberty, it has the benefit of including the first 3 letter of Liberal and indeed the shortened Lib.

  I also like community and take the point made above that community is more than localism.
  People are at liberty to be involved in various different communities whether at home, on their estate, at work at the pub, in their sports club, as members of national bodies etc.
  We can respect all the different communities an individual chooses to align with not just the localism one.

  So
  Liberal Democrats are at war with injustice, and for an open society that Liberates communities

  Would be my offering for the succinct golden threat the author is rightly looking for

• Phil Wainewright 6th Feb '18 - 9:41am

  @Andy Cooke – you asked how to capture the twin concepts of individual freedom and working with others in an easy and catchy way.

  I went away and had a think about that, and my answer is that Lib Dems believe in building a society where everyone belongs, as I explain in this LDV post: https://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrats-are-the-party-where-everyone-belongs-56546.html

• Simon Banks 23rd Mar '18 - 9:42am

  That’s a sound summary. Another way of putting it is giving power back to people, which is in line both with Gladstone’s summary of the fundamental difference between Toryism and Liberalism – and the Liberal slogan of February 1974 (bigger haul of votes than any Liberal Democrat campaign), “Take Power, Vote Liberal”.

  It follows that our policies should illustrate our principles.

• Malcolm Todd 23rd Mar '18 - 2:07pm

  Sheila Gee 30th Jan ’18 – 3:20pm

  I think that’s the best summation of other parties’ basic identity that I’ve ever seen. What’s impressive is that it manages to capture each party’s own outlook, rather than the usual nonsense along the lines of “Labour are for state control and Tories are for corporations but Lib Dems want freedom for the people” that is trotted out on this site with wearisome regularity.

  Stuart Kelly’s “Liberal Democrats are at war with injustice, and for an open society that Liberates communities” (1st Feb ’18 – 4:32pm) isn’t a bad go as an equivalent for LDs. Perhaps the difference between those who call themselves “social liberals” and (let’s call it) the David Evershed wing comes down to whether you see taxation and regulation as fundamentally unjust.