For those who, like me, prefer to absorb information, arguments, proposals and inspiration from reading print rather than listening to podcasts I present below what I believe to be the key points from the Green Book podcast featured on LDV on Wednesday 15th January, in which Chris Bowers chairs contributions from Layla Moran, Lynne Featherstone and Timothy Garton Ash.
- An important feature of Liberalism is its (our?) capacity for self-criticism.
- Fundamental to Liberalism is to place limits on ALL forms of power.
- Over the centuries in the West Liberalism has had considerable success in placing limits on public power.
- However, especially in recent years, we’re failing to limit private power. (eg Musk and the tech companies, fossil-fuel lobbyists, newspaper owners, et al.)
- Aspects of both “neo” Liberalism and “woke” Liberalism have caused large sections of the electorates to stop listening to us.
“Neo” liberalism because the economic gains have gone largely to the “already haves” and not improved the lots of the “ordinary working family.”
“Woke ” liberalism, with its laudable concerns for the fair treatment and respect for the feelings of eg people of colour, the disabled, gays, lesbians etc., tend to make the white working class, especially the men (defined vividly by American commentator Tucker Carlsen “people who can actually change a flat tyre”) feel that Liberals “are concerned about everyone but me.”
- Hence the importance of listening. (Layla Moran in particular emphasised this point.)
- We believe “we know best.”* This comes over as condescending, which is why we lost the Brexit debate, the 2017 and 2019 elections and Kamala Harris lost in the US in 2024.
- Compare that with the populist approach of “It’s somebody else’s fault.” (the EU in Brexit; the Liberal Elite, immigrants). This is a much easier message to get across.
- Two elections have turned the tide against populism and authoritarianism: ours in 2024 and, more spectacularly in Poland with their skilful use of social media. (A bigger proportion of the young voted than the elderly.)
- So we need to learn new tricks!
*Well, we do, don’t we? On his blog Mainly Macro recently, retired Oxford economics professor Simon Wren Lewis used the term (he may have invented it) the High Information Voter. (HIV!) That’s a good definition of a Liberal Democrat activists but we must to remember, without condescension, that we need to attract the support of those women and men whose interests, skills and concerns are, quite legitimately, in other spheres, including how to change tyres.
* Peter Wrigley is a member of Spen Valley Liberal Democrats and blogs as keynesianliberal.blogspot.com
11 Comments
Agree with some of those points, but…
a) the assumption of the populists and also of the hardcore identity-politics left-liberals that if you’re against what is loosely termed ‘woke’ (don’t like the term) thinking in one area you will be against ‘it’ (it isn’t a single ‘it’) in all areas (and ‘it’ always leads ‘its’ adherents to the same policy conclusions) is a simplification that is destroying the ability of the political centre to be dextrous and flexible on these issues, and to listen well.
b) Your discourse on we-know-best in the Lib Dems is fair as is your point about the ‘high information voter’ but I would still want to challenge the patronising idea in many politicians that we do need to simplify things and sympathise with those who don’t have time to follow everything, but if you had all the information and had understood it, you would draw identical conclusions to said politician.
We need to retain / regain the pre-social media concept that disagreement is legitimate and those who critique us are not automatically bad-faith-actors, or to be cynically gamed and rhetorically framed into less democratic power over the system than we have.
The unfortunate reality is that for the most part, we’re living in an era of populist thinking. I think the idea that “we know best” comes really from a refusal to change our policies or moderate them to fall in line with the populist way of thinking. So for example, we try and retain an optimistic view and push policies in that basis, rather than take the negative view of “everything else that everyone has ever done has gone wrong, only we can save you!”
I think point 4, the failure to limit private power, is an increasingly important one, linked of course to wealth and the influence of the leaders of big business on government decisions. This is part of inequalities in the UK but also connects with the issue of conformity in the sense that those not in a position of wealth or power have less freedom to live as they would like. People feeling like this often turn to the promises of the right-wing populists in the hope that they will not be false promises but are also attracted to these populist politicians due to their true expression of frustration against the establishment. The latter feelings are surely shared by Liberals too.
My experience as a candidate 2024 in a hustings reminded me that in spite of having fundamental differences with the Reform party, there are points on which I found agreement. For example, supporting small businesses as opposed to big ones and their excessive profits, together with better quality of practical education and training so more of our youngsters can fill jobs currently often filled by immigrants.
As a Liberal I acknowledge that although I feel we have the best overall plan for our nation, other parties also have some good things to say.
Thanks for your comments.
@ Matt: I’d put the emphasis not on “simplifying” our policies but showing how they are relevant to the everyday lives of those non-HIV people. This is not easy, especially in a world where three- world slogans tend to be successful. We need to study carefully how the Polish Liberals did it.
@Daniel Stylianou: If moderating our policies means watering them down, then that can be a dangerous slippery slope. For example, we believe in the rule of law, and could never countenance braking it in a strict and limited way. Again it’s a matter of showing how our policies are relevant.
@ Nigel Jones: I agree we need to be vigorous in limiting the powers of the state (not least the executive’s excessive control over parliament) and the powers of rich individuals (not least their ownership; of the media and their massive contributions to political parties.) And yes, we should recognise the good policies in other parties, and we should be clearer in supporting small businesses, especially start-ups, as Will Hutton has been pointing out recently. At the other end of the scale I am appalled by the amount of business the government gives to such as Serco and G4s.
Thank you for your article, Peter Wrigley. Like you, I prefer reading print information and arguments to podcast listening – despite having served on Lewes DC with Chris Bowers for several years! It has been helpful both to read your original post and the subsequent comments of others.
We need to make it clear that we will be consistent in future regarding foreign interference. We didn’t say anything when Obama interfered in Brexit or when Soros has interfered in UK politics. Also we didn’t say anything when Dorsey was censoring Twitter.
The UK electorate will see it as brazen partisanship and it will be complete counterproductive if we are as seen hypocritical as to when foreign interference and individual control of social media platforms. Therefore if we are going to go down this road it must apply for everyone whether or not we agree with them.
Might the current L D party havé two basic problems?
1) Limitation of policies resulting from allegiance to Neo-liberalism, which is obviously harming regular citizens and their children.
2) Lack of socially welcomed political “small talk” style to present political “deep talk” concepts and practicalities accessibly and entertainingly.
Might part of the rise of the “populist” parties result from their offering a real alternative to the current monopoly of Neoliberal policy in major political parties, and their use of attractively accessible language codes?
Or, in bluntspeak:
a) Too little wealth and well-being stuff for “us”
b) Too much complex-speak
I somehow doubt this abbreviation “HIV” for “High Information Voter” will catch on!
They might develop an Amplified Information Democratic System!
Limits to power seems a topical issue and one that Liberal Democrats should lead on. It combines a number of ideas and might be worthy of a consultation session at Conference. It would certainly resonate with me.