I think we can agree that public confidence in our political system is at an all-time low. It comes to a pretty pass when Count Binface is considered to be a best alternative to a national party leader in a by-election, or that the party of government feels the need, mid parliament, to regularly change its leader (and our PM) supposedly for the benefit of all.
This sorry state of affairs has been growing, across the spectrum, for a long time of course as the desire of politicians to win replaced a desire to serve. Essentially its roots emanate from the Tory party as Thatcher moved our politics economically to a system built on free market deregulation and personal advantage. The result, after 40 mismanaged years, is a divided, fractured, unequal, angry society ripe for the populists to trigger. Where the targeting of a sleeping non-voter base has the capacity to change the political landscape entirely, from Brexit to the rise of the rabid-right. Its little surprise then that after two wasted years from Labour, and the continuing Lib Dem obsession with winning based on quantity of activity rather than relevance of message that we are where we are. Strong in a core heartland, largely invisible everywhere else.
For the Social Liberal Forum, our approach up until now, has been to act as a platform for discussion and advocacy of Socially Liberal values. With events, fringe meetings and publications we have looked at economics, we have discussed the role of liberalism in a divided society, and some of our members have worked tirelessly to challenge and improve party policy. The aim of this being to encourage the party to adopt a more socially liberal stance.
We will always be campaigners, but being able to change lives at scale requires electoral success, without it it’s a slow and frustrating plod. But, with our effectiveness so localised and party strategy centred on weight of leaflets delivered, rather than a moral passion for a relevant national message across the country all that’s left for us to offer is a national party of independents in the guise of ‘Local Champions’.
The big question then is, if we really do see ourselves as a true national liberal party, has to be the creation of a ‘Clear Liberal Objective’. What is the Lib Dem Vision for the society we seek to create? That when you vote Lib Dem you do so because our vision and moral passion inspires your support. We must be so much more than, ‘not the other party’! Why have we remained a substantially feudal society centred on perceptions of class and the desire for assets. Where is the vital importance of community and mutual support. Where is equality, freedom and community.
The strategy for the SLF then is quite simple. Take our values out into the real world, road test them, make them relevant and identify practical ways that these values can become, and in some places already are, part of everyday campaigning life for Liberal Democrats. Social Liberalism we believe contains the answers and values upon which a Liberal Society can be built. Through the adoption of a focused strategy the SLF can become the relevant answer to a political party locked into its defence of what it has, at the total expense of what it must achieve. We can help the Lib Dems become relevant, a national political party and one capable of challenging for Government and meaningful, social liberal change.
Be part of this, visit www.socialliberal.net to join and come to the online AGM this Saturday, 1st Aug.
* Roger Hayes is a councillor in Kingston and a Council member of the Social Liberal Forum. John Shreeve is Chair of the Social Liberal Forum
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A vanished island in the Trent near Nottingham
Jeffrey Archer's 'First Among Equals', with Shane Whaley (part 1)
Getting people off the streets is the easy bit, keeping them in their accommodation is much harder
Tory fantasy on net zero
Jana
Peter Davies
David Raw
Peter Martin
7 Comments
“ Essentially its roots emanate from the Tory party as Thatcher moved our politics economically to a system built on free market deregulation and personal advantage”
Yes and no. Thatcher’s actions were the root of the issue, but it was how opposition political parties – especially Labour – responded that has caused massive frustration. Labour, under Blair, promised change while continuing with Thatcher’s policies..not a surprise that voting turnout fell massively from 1997 to 2001 as many voters gave up. Of course, the Liberal Democrat’s contributed to voter distrust by making so explicit promises on tuition fees only to choose to renege when they had a real opportunity to deliver…and then apologising for making the promise rather than breaking it.
Not a surprise that so many have given up on the main political parties, or on voting itself.
Thank you for a most encouraging “signpost” article!
It is hoped that the following extracts from an AI Overview definition of “Social Liberalism” may be of assistance.
“Social Liberalism is a political ideology that combines individual liberty with the belief that government should intervene to promote equal opportunity, social justice, and basic welfare, it balances a market economy with public protections for disadvantaged people.”
Here is an AI Overview article:
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+social+liberalism&oq=definition+of+social+liberalism&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTINCAEQABiGAxiABBiKBTIHCAIQABjvBTIHCAMQABjvBTIHCAQQABjvBTIHCAUQABjvBTIHCAYQABjvBdIBCTE3OTAxajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&source=chrome.ob&ie=UTF-8
P. S. If you accept the hypothesis that, basically, our society comprises 4 power groups:
1) Government
2) The wealthy/powerful/influential
3) The regular citizenry
4_ The significantly disadvataged
then effective, genuinely democratic govenment is required to protect groups 3 and 4 from 2.
P. S. Might recent and current Austerity/Neoliberalism be a combination of the powers of 1 and2?
Excellent!
“Clear Liberal Objective” Is that not in the preamble of our constitution ? Is that not the bedrock of The Liberal Democrats as a social liberal party ?
We have a leadership which is straying from that core message and does need refreshing for future elections to come . We must show we are more than just a fair ground or theme park novelty act and there is still some substance in our cause .
I actually agree with Jana and also very much with Neil.
Margaret Thatcher gets blamed for so many things. Other parties, particularly Labour when in power, didn’t change much or undo some of the damage. She certainly wasn’t responsible for bringing in let alone increasing tuition fees, that calamity belongs to another political leader. H.E. remained effectively free under her leadership.
What I find irksome is the emphasis on market forces by the term ‘market economy’. Far better to emphasise a ‘mixed economy’ with more of an emphasis on social welfare than privatisation by stealth.
“A true national liberal party
I do not see how a “true national liberal party” can be solely based on social liberalism – such a party can be only half a liberal party, and to demote economic liberalism ignores an important tool in the liberal armory.
It is after all the economic liberalism that incorporates free enquiry, free trade and markets, caution about the power of the state, and the capitalism of Adam Smith markets that has enabled the extraordinary advances in freedom and wealth across the world of the 19th and 20th centuries, with social liberalism ensuring the fruits of that enterprise are spread more fairly and that citizens are protected from the extremes of competition.
With the economic liberals on the right of politics being distracted by the horrors of ethno-nationalism now is the time for a truly national liberal party to re-embrace this part of its philosophical heritage as part of the most important projects of all – excluding the ethno- nationalists, and stopping/mitigating climate change. After all the emphasis on social liberalism over the last 100 years or so has not – in terms of gaining power – been terribly successful.
PErhaps mor imprtantly, the , advances like of (for example) better quality of life for billions accross the wprld
A codified constitution would have wording that would deal with this and other similar events. This is far preferable to allowing anything that the rules do not forbid. One of the results of a well worded constitution is that it allows for a full explanation of the principles involved and the reason for its decisions. Using the process of calling by-elections for political gain is something the electorate rightly abhors.