We need a single guiding point that policy, communication, and a revitalised brand can flow from. Without losing the breadth of values that makes us strong
Most liberals and Liberal Democrats have instincts – and often detailed, powerful, personal articulations – for why they are liberal and/or Lib Dems. Our constitution is also an impressive illustration, as is the history of liberal ideas and achievements. We have many pillars: internationalism, environmentalism, liberty, equality, community, and more – all working together. But that breadth which is so often a strength also presents a struggle: communicating a single, clear vision or “north star” that means the public instinctively and immediately know who we are and what we stand for.
What liberals and Liberal Democrats often lack is a single guiding beacon for both storytelling and policymaking.
The idea of a platform – for every individual to thrive and live their own version of a best life – is increasingly my own personal way of understanding my progressive/social liberal politics… as well as what policy and decision making can ultimately strive toward. It works well on the doorstep. But that needs a conversation to hold long enough that the platform idea becomes natural enough to weave in.
There’s something about the platform that still isn’t quite boiled down enough to make me confident in it as the finished idea. That’s where I’d love some help from anyone who either resonates with or sees the problem in this idea – alongside everyone who has already helped shape it, of course – thank you and we’ll talk more in Brighton!
A single framing for liberalism: A platform to live your version of a best life.
From that platform comes three core concepts: freedom, fairness, and opportunity. From these our broader value set and policy can flow in all its forms.
- Meaningful freedom.
A platform sees freedom really mean something. That meaningful freedom must come from a solid foundation (NOT a safety net for when something goes wrong) that includes health, housing, environment, purpose, political voice, community, education, and all the elements that allow individuals and communities to thrive under their own definitions.
- Freedom in a fair society that works especially for the least advantaged.
A platform means a fair society – and goodness knows that could be defined in many ways. For me, and I see for many liberals, fairness in many ways means the version of society that works best for the least advantaged. A society that you would think is fair not knowing who you were in it (the “veil of ignorance”).
- Genuine equality of opportunity, not just theoretical opportunity written in law.
Opportunity that feels real. Underpinned by all the foundations of meaningful freedom… again: health, housing, environment, purposeful work, political voice, community, education, and more.
What a platform is not…
A platform is not a safety net vs incentives to work. It provides everyone with the environment and means to thrive from a solid base – rather than having the bare minimum (if that) kick in once something has gone wrong.
A platform is not regulation vs freedom. Freedom cannot be meaningful for everyone if individuals and organisations are allowed to negatively affect the freedom of others to live their best lives.
A platform is not government vs markets and business. Markets and government in partnership at their best can achieve extraordinary things to provide a platform for everyone to thrive. But that “public-private collaboration” must strive toward clear visions, values, and outcomes for the kind of society we want to see.
A platform is not individuals vs community. Community gives every individual the opportunities to engage in whatever ways they want to in their best lives.
A platform is not housing vs local communities. A platform is not technology and innovation vs jobs and the planet. A platform is not the environment vs prosperity. A platform is not health vs wealth. A platform is not democracy vs action at the speed we need to address the climate and sustainability emergency. A platform is not defence vs public services…
Government and politics can strive toward this platform. Not minimal government. Not dictating lives. But giving individuals and communities everything they need to be free to live their versions of a best life.
* Josh works on climate and sustainability across research, consulting, convening, and advocacy, focusing on systems change and new economics. Josh is a member of the Lib Dem Federal Policy Committee (FPC). He is a former PPC and Cambridge City Councillor with the opposition portfolio for Climate, Environment, and the City Centre.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A ghost sign near Parliament Hill Fields
Some of the churches of Gower
Jack Meredith
PM
David Allen
Peter Davies
12 Comments
“ Freedom cannot be meaningful for everyone if individuals and organisations are allowed to negatively affect the freedom of others to live their best lives.”
Yes, and that means that individuals can not have absolute freedom to live their lives exactly as they choose if doing so negatively affects other people and the freedom of other people to live their best lives. The challenge we face is in deciding how much negative impact on others we are willing to tolerate in the quest to maximise individual freedom to live as they choose.
A disturbing article in the Sunday Times today which cannot be glossed over, by LDV or by anybody else, written by Josh Glancy :
“When was the last time you saw Sir Ed Davey in a wetsuit? Paddleboarding? Bungee jumping? In fact, when was the last time you saw Davey at all ? In a recent survey commissioned by the pollster Lord Ashcroft, the overwhelming response from the public when asked to describe Liberal Democrat leader was “weak”. Even more concerning is recent polling from More in Common, which found that 53 per cent of Britons had no view on whether Sir Ed is doing a good or bad job. Many simply didn’t know who he was.
As the party prepares for its annual conference in Brighton next weekend, Davey’s weakness on the national stage is a subject of open discussion. “There is real frustration about the lack of cut through,” says one party source. “Among the members but also the MPs.”
This is the right problem to be working on, and I think the answer may be less about the words than about the moments. In my experience people learn what we stand for when they see us defending something, not when we describe ourselves. The platform idea is strong, but it will reach people through the fights we pick with it rather than through the framing itself.
A revitalised brand is needed, but it must grow from our values, not replace them. How do we ensure the platform doesn’t become another slogan rather than a lived reality?
This one of a series of articles recently published in the Liberal Democrat Voice that defines our social liberal values . Frequently the hot house of Westminster generates much noise but little of substance or how we deliver sustainability for our communities , environment and economy . I agree with Josh Mathews a platform or benchmark for Liberal Democracy would act as set of guidelines by which the public could expect Liberal Democracy to be delivered .
It’s an interesting article, which gives us more to think about, but when it ends with “Government and politics can strive toward this platform … giving individuals and communities everything they need to be free to live their versions of a best life”!! I think that bit definitely needs a re-think.
We all know that there are lots of people out there who regard their version of a best life involves having exactly what they want, whenever they want it, easy living, no responsibilities, fast cars and lots of fun, while there are others who want the ability to force others to have to bow to their whims.
Whatever is at the heart of Liberal Democracy is not purely personal liberty, but also shared community, for we all know that a thriving community provides the very kernel of what is needed for individuals to thrive and that there is has to be compromise by all individuals in a community for it to thrive.
The preamble refers to balance in this context.
Excellent piece, Josh. As for seeking others’ thoughts on the pitch, here are mine:
Labour and the Greens want to do things for you, the Conservatives and Reform want to do things to you, but the Liberal Democrats want to do things along with you. That means ensuring the law protects and compels everyone equally, rather than just in favour of the state, or only protecting some and only compelling others. It means believing people when they tell us who they are, and giving them the power and ability to become their best selves. It also means finding where power is concentrated, like Westminster and Edinburgh, and dispersing it back to regions, communities and individuals, but it also means ensuring those regions and communities are properly able and empowered to help everyone.
“Labour and the Greens want to do things for you, the Conservatives and Reform want to do things to you, but the Liberal Democrats want to do things along with you.”
I think that’s a fairly accurate summary. The problem is that there are a great many people who would like all of you to leave us alone. Lao Tzu wrote a book about it a couple of thousand years ago.
The party needs to ditch fairness and the veil of ignorance. And focus more on Mills harm principles instead of Rawls. Rawls is deontological, Mill is consequentialist. It should take the opportunity the conservatives are giving by pissing off one nation conservatives. This party needs to move rightwards. And give more focus to right-liberalism, and less identity politics. Apply the harm principle to each policy. And spell out our defense spending and where that will come from.
Thanks for a most relevant and interesting article!
Might the following policies be liberal in their content and democratic in their practices?
1) Universal healthcare – free or low cost
2) All three stages of education free to students
3) Extensive state-supported child care
4) High/proportional tax rates for those on high personal income which visibly go towards public goods and social security
5) Income equity with consequental minimal poverty
6) Strong democratic unions in partnership with employers and government
7) Proactive labour policies which balances flexiblity with decent insurance and retraining programmes to facilitate effective employment flexibility
P S These suggestions come from the policies of the Nordic countries which are rated highly for socio-economic success and general citizen satisfaction!
Good thinking. And close to the fundamental beliefs of Paddy Ashdown, with whom I worked in the 1990s. His thinking was that if every citizen could fulfil their unique potential then the country would fulfil its too – which is also quite Nordic. I think one trick is to understand that the ‘single guiding beacon’, as Josh puts it, will never make news or achieve the ‘cut-through’ mentioned above. But if we really believed in it as a party then radical and eye-catching policies would flow. So for example, if we really believe in enabling everyone to fulfil their unique potential, the education system would need to be profoundly reformed, putting the child at its heart, rather than the curriculum. Happy to chat in Brighton!
Bit of a depressing article on the BBC website today, focusing on the views of some LD MPs that the party lacks relevance and cut-through. Looking at the HYS comments below, the vast majority are extremely negative towards the LDs. The most frequent criticism of Ed Davey is over the PO scandal. He has become a convenient scapegoat for the justified anger. The next most common criticism was the hypocrisy of the LDs over Piddington, wanting immigration, as long as refugees aren’t given accommodation in their own constituencies.