The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society.
So states the preamble to our Federal Constitution.
In a political climate increasingly defined by identity, insecurity, and polarisation, I think it would be helpful for us to explicitly consider what we mean when we talk about an Open Society. Here I want to make the case that the open society can be viewed through the prism of another of the Liberal Democrats’ core commitments – our internationalism.
Karl Popper first coined the term Open Society to describe a system that resists authoritarianism and defends individual liberty through rational, democratic means. It was a product of the mid-20th century, born from the trauma of fascism and the hope of post-war reconstruction. But the phrase has since drifted into the background of our politics—understood intuitively, but rarely claimed explicitly.
I think we should be making the position a lot more explicit than we do. Not just as a vague liberal instinct, but as a clear ideological banner—one that differentiates us from Labour’s managed decline, the Conservatives’ nationalist retrenchment, and Reform’s anti-globalist populism. If we articulate it well, the Open Society can be the hook around we offer a forward-facing vision of Britain’s role in the world and its commitment to fairness at home.
Beyond fortress or fog
The populist wave has made gains by presenting a simple story: that national identity is under threat—from immigration, from globalisation, from “elites.”
We must respond with a similarly compelling narrative: and I do think it is one that embraces an increasingly interconnected political reality. An Open Society isn’t borderless idealism. It can be presented as a confident, generous posture in the world—Britain as a nation in relation. National identity doesn’t have to be a fortress; it can be a lighthouse.
Britain’s place in the World—and why it matters at home
The UK is uniquely placed to lead as an Open Society. We are home to the global language of exchange, to world-leading universities and cultural exports, and to soft power institutions like the BBC and the Royal Family—which, love them or not, act as symbols of continuity, diplomacy, and global interest.
Britain’s common law system underpins commercial law across the world. Our scientific legacy—from Newton to Turing to the Oxford vaccine—still earns global admiration. And our arts, music, and publishing sectors have an impact far beyond our shores.
This global identity pays dividends here at home:
- International students continue to bring £billions a year and help keep regional universities and local economies afloat.
- Immigrants and diaspora communities staff the NHS, start businesses, and revitalise neighbourhoods.
- Global trade and investment create real jobs—from manufacturing plants in Sunderland to digital hubs in Leeds.
- British soft power makes our citizens safer abroad and helps us negotiate trade, peace, and partnerships on favourable terms.
Put simply: when Britain is connected to the world, working people benefit.
A truly Open Society doesn’t erase local identity—it roots it more firmly. We should embrace the idea that Cornwall, Yorkshire, Wales, and Scotland each have global stories to tell. That Birmingham and Manchester are as much part of Britain’s international identity as London is. If we want to strengthen our nations and regions, we can do so through promoting more international connectedness and trade, and these benefits will be experienced directly by working people.
A story that jnspires and includes
I was never prouder of our country than during the London Olympic Games in 2012. In the years of developmental work leading up to the event, through the spectacular opening ceremony and the outstanding performances of our athletes, we seemed to capture the very best of what Britain can be: proud, diverse, and outward-looking. Yet, it’s true that many people across the country may not have felt that same connection or stake in that moment. That is why, as Liberal Democrats, we can bring together two powerful truths: Britain’s proud place in the world, and the real, tangible benefits that openness can bring to communities everywhere—from our cities to our regions. These are not separate stories but should be two sides of the same coin. We know that many voters make choices from appeals to gut-feeling, and populists like Farage have been skilled at telling emotionally compelling narratives. We can craft our own story: about what an Open Society truly means—one that speaks both to Britain’s global identity and the everyday lives of its people.
* John is Membership Development Officer for Leeds Liberal Democrats, an academic leader in Higher Education and as a psychotherapist in private practice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
AM
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
15 Comments
Sadly choosing to use the term “Open Society” as a banner would be a total political disaster for us – Not because of what we mean when we use it, but by how others will abuse it when we use it.
There is an old saying that is very true, which we ignore at our peril – “It’s not the facts. It’s the name you give to the facts, ” and Open Society is just totally the wrong phrase to use.
Imagine a late middle aged man with a cigar and a pint in his hand, a typical smirk on his lips and blondish dyed hair in tribute to his pal Donald. Imagine him saying loudly and repeatedly “Typical Liberals. They want to let in everyone and anyone to this country. Open Society just means more Open Borders.” Then try explaining to all those people we want to vote for us what we really mean.
It’s an open goal for Reform, the Cons and probably Labour as well.
Popper chose a term, an intellectual term, not in all honesty a particularly meaningful term way back in the 1940s. But is it NOT a campaigning term for the 2020s.
Take the idea John. Develop a better name for it that is easy to defend, and then go with it. Then we can win.
Multiculturalism hasn’t been the success story the progressive left likes to think it is. EU countries are implementing much stricter border checks as those countries face significant criticism from the public regarding unregulated immigration. The British public has been sold a lie about the economic benefits that this record immigration was supposed to bring to the economy – it hasn’t materialized. Voters only need to look around to realize that.
This is campus politics stuff – playing into the out of touch middle class liberal elites narrative. Try living in one of those post industrial towns that’s seen huge demographic changes and zero benefit for it ….
“Middle class elite” is an oxymoron. I’m middle-class, but in no way “elite”. The propaganda about “unregulated immigration” (which BTW is not what is happening) comes from a privileged billionaire-class elite. As Tim Farron said “The phrase ‘the liberal elite’ is usually bandied about by people who aren’t liberal but who are the elite. Whereas I am a liberal but am not the elite.” We need to break the illiberal elite’s stranglehold on the public discourse on subjects such as immigration. This will not be achieved by repeating the illiberal elite’s narratives as if they carried any truth in them. They need to be challenged.
@ Craig Levene “Multiculturalism hasn’t been the success story the progressive left likes to think it is”.
So, we can assume you don’t identify as a member of the progressive left, Mr Levene. Perhaps you could tell us what you do identify as so as to avoid any future misunderstanding ?
If we didn’t want multiculturalism we shouldn’t have spent hundreds of years going round the world nicking other people’s stuff. Bit late to whinge about it now. The people who have done most damage to the community I came from were white, private schooled, posh boys like Osborne, Johnson, and Farage.
@John Hills
“We should embrace the idea that Cornwall, Yorkshire, Wales, and Scotland each have global stories to tell.”
Any reason that “England” was not included in this list? As the largest nation within the UK, it has a particularly significant story to tell.
I refer everyone else posting here back to my original comment. The concept of an open society as promoted by Popper and Henri Bergson before him, is not a society that is open to all people outside it, it is a society that is open to ideas, values and thoughts from outside which can be evaluated, assessed and (yes that key Lib Dem preamble word again) balanced by free thinking individuals in a society to determine through democracy whether it is beneficial to that society.
One thing that defines a successful, thriving, open society is that it has the willingness to evaluate ideas and if necessary reject them. That is what happened in South Korea last year when its people chose to oppose authoritarianism. There are ideas of how to organise a society that while sounding nice (like multiculturalism) bring about changes that may be beneficial for some but are in fact a massive disbenefit other parts of society as Craig points out.
Wages in low paid industries depressed due to immigration and the impact on rural society, while the educated middle class do quite well thank you very much.
Women’s and gay rights in those Muslim communities with an illiberal belief system.
Wages in middle class jobs depressed or even disposed of due to the implementation of Chat GPT.
The mega rich getting so rich and powerful they can ignore and subvert the entire liberal democratic system across nations.
The question is how do we achieve a balance?
Findng one story that appeals to vastly different audiences is an impossible task. Talk of multiculturalism doesn’t help but celebrating our country and its regions as proudly welcoming, diverse and multiple-cultured might. Talk of the trickledown benefits of global connectedness is also a hard message in both rural villages and economically deprived urban areas. Put it in the context of protecting our national security might be better just as our renewable energy policy has to be part of our security policy too. What we need is a story of leadership at all levels that people can trust to be brave, curious and kind in equal measure. Where we understand to be curious has the same etymological route as to curate; i.e. simply to care.
Thanks to those who’ve offered your thoughts so far.
David Evans – I see your point re the term. I love the term actually – it speaks so closely to me and my values as a Liberal – but I do see how it could be easily hijacked. Finding the right turn of phrase to capture that idea that being Open does not mean a free-for-all, but is about open exchange of learning, of ideas, of culture, and of course of free trade. Because alongside that openness are what I would consider Enlightenment principles of reason, freedom of speech, individual liberty, and universal education which should be considered non-negotiable, but many people fear are under threat in an ‘open’ society.
With respect to your hypothetical chap in the Dog and Gun, I think part of the reason the populists are surging is because their ‘formula’ is working – look at what people are saying in the opinion polls and then passively work up a political message that caters to it. Surely, the role of political leaders with integrity is to reach back with a view to persuasion – active listening, and then actively articulating a more hopeful and constructive vision for society.
Brenda Will – that’s a fair point re England. As a very proud Englishman myself, just to explain my thought process there which is that typically, and with good reason, our ‘national’ story is London-centric, which is of course England’s most powerful city. But actually we do need, both in our vision and well as our policies, to promote a more balanced UK, with stronger regional identities, and voices, making their unique contributions within and beyond our borders.
And as a more general response. Yes, it’s sometimes a hard sell, as you observed Richard Dickson, to make the case for global connectedness to rural communities, and working class post-industrial towns. But is it possible for us to get beyond a black and white narrative of multi-cultural good/multi-culturalism bad, or immigration good/immigration bad, but as Liberals to champion the very real goods that multi-culturalism, immigration, world trade, global education, and British soft power have brought? Nigel Farage can pull out plenty of anecdotes that he knows will get people riled up and slots them into his speeches. Why can’t we do the same, except with the intention to inspire hope? David Evans’ hypothetical chap in the pub isn’t the one we’d reach first, but before him we would reach the people for whom voting Liberal is currently seen as an ‘option’, and then beyond them to keep on reaching…
Craig Levine ‘This is campus politics stuff’ – Maybe! Campus politics is full of idealism, much less so the practical realities of governing. But idealism is what draws us into politics surely? Without ideals what are our compass point, what is our bigger picture, and how will we know, coherently, what is is we’re seeking government for?
Hello John,
Thank you for taking the time to post such detailed replies, some authors do, many don’t, but I think it is vital so we can consider counterpoints from fellow Lib Dems and learn from each other.
Regarding what the term we choose is needs careful consideration, probably a Lib Dem policy committee think about would not cut it, not a trip to the Dog and Gun. In reality some serious money might need spending on some Focus Group sessions and not the nice like us degree educated comfortably off ones, perhaps the more Centre Right One Nation Cons who voted for us last time some of whom are very well educated and comfortably off, but also totally disillusioned with the destruction of their values in the modern Conservative party under Johnson, Truss and Sunak.
Finally, regarding the hypothetical late middle aged man in the dog and gun with a cigar and a pint in his hand, a typical smirk on his lips and blondish dyed hair in tribute to his pal Donald, perhaps I was being a bit too subtle for my own good here. To me he is definitely called Nigel.
All the best,
David
A very interesting article. You sound very thoughtful about politics and political philosophy, @John Hills.
I do like the idea of an open society – it does seem to capture the idea of what liberalism should mean. But it is problematic as a campaigning thing: As this discussion has amply shown, it’s easily misinterpreted to mean open borders. But I think there’s a second problem: Even if you more correctly understand it as referring to openness to new ideas and letting people live in freedom, it’s just not something enough of the electorate care much about. If you ask people what they want from the Government, I imagine very few would say that ‘more freedom’ is their priority. I’d expect most people would want more security, a better standard of living, to be able to afford their rent/buy a house, and to feel they can trust the Government. So although I fully agree that an open society should be what we aspire to as a fundamental aim, it’s just not a good selling point at the moment 🙁
Liberalism rejects any idea of “community” that is based on conformity to a repressive social norm, as I noted under another post recently. Indeed it is explicity written in our party’s constitution that we seek a society where “no-one shall be enslaved by … conformity”. It’s the same whether this conformity is enforced by the state or a “community”.
So tolerance of illiberal belief systems in ethnic communities, far from being inherent in an “open society”, is actually the exact opposite of such a society. I tend to avoid talk of “multiculturalism” because this tends to be something that, outside certain academic circles, people only bring up in order to debunk. But it’s worth noting the brazen hypocrisy of the political Right making a big issue of repressive “cultural” norms among certain immigrant communities while cutting funding to groups that aim to help victims of exactly those cultural norms (often ironically because it’s supposedly “woke” to do this), and presiding over an asylum system that routinely rejects asylum applications from people fleeing persecution over their gender, sexuality or religion by invoking those exact same “cultural” stereotypes. It’s also worth observing that many right-wing fake critics of those illiberal “cultural” practices probably wouldn’t have a problem with them if practiced among the “native” communities.