The desire for a sense of control is a deeply futile effort, because despite being individuals, we find ourselves in a social paradigm, shaped by what is beyond our control – for example, where we are born. The person we grow into is also often a product of their environment, often not only inheriting their parents’ genes, but also their ideas and mannerisms. We are all woven in a tapestry of human experience, for we were not born in the wilderness and raised by wolves, without any social contact.

In our growingly atomised age, where our identities are now less bound to our nationality and class as they used to be but increasingly linked to our protected characteristics, conservative backlash bears electoral fruit. It is therefore no longer surprising that in developed countries, we vote not in economic terms, but primarily social now – previously hardened identities of old, such as class or gender, become blurred and less well-defined. This leads to a mismatch between increasingly academic and arbitrary language and lived experiences, which far too often translates as resentment towards liberalism, which feels moralising and detached. For example, Labour struggles with capturing the working-class vote, whilst the Conservatives have lost their affluent but socially liberal support. The left-right axis is becoming ineffective at describing political persuasions as Reform voters are ambivalent on economics, yet hardcore on social conservatism. The floor for liberalism has opened as an alternative, but communicating it without alienating people, as progressives did during the Brexit vote, is key.

No matter how you describe yourself, social life feels ever so meaningless and abstract, making it easier to dissent against the invisible forces that ground us to rationality and evidence as the social contract feels bereft of relevance in a dynamic society. Whether we like it or not, we have all become categorised in a hierarchy that correlates to how much empathy we deserve based on characteristics we have no control over. Identity politics is well-intentioned and a response to historical injustices, but it fails to achieve the sense of inclusivity it seeks and instead makes the progressive agenda antagonistic rather than a positive one. It risks being illiberal if it devalues people without judging them blindly and fairly in a Rawlsian fashion. Right now, it is those voting right who are the most pessimistic about Britain, because they have been ignored and lectured that their views are ugly and are a threat to a modern, cosmopolitan society. Under the guise of inclusivity, progressives have locked these ‘citizens of somewhere’ out – fuelling the perception that the political classes are more interested in those in Brussels than Burnley. It never had to be a fight against the ‘other’.

The many good-hearted people across our country and the world did not suddenly become swept by a fever of intolerance and discontent overnight, the explanation on the left that these people are inherently bigoted is exactly where the problem lies. The rise of an energetic and charismatic far-right is also the product of unequal prosperity, deepened by political choices, such as austerity which our party unfortunately contributed to in the Coalition era. From my perspective, it has also been hastened by an exclusionary, purity-testing leftism that is anything but liberal. Just like Newton’s Third Law of Motion, where every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is what we are experiencing right now, and it has the potential to spiral down if we fail to foster an environment of civic belonging and a democratic culture that extends beyond the ballot box.

What is There to Do?

As liberals, we believe in designing policies based on evidence, but without a story, numbers and charts are not compelling as it could not be felt. The reality is that politics is often driven by stories; the lack of one led to an internal coup that ousted the Prime Minister. It is an advantage for the Liberal Democrats to not be bound to a faction of society, because it is in a position where it can naturally seek co-operation between the rich or poor, the native or immigrant, the worker or unemployed. I believe it needs to be a party of common sense by making the case for pragmatic policies, such as ending the triple-lock, which it fails to do by rejecting a core tenet of what liberal parties historically have sought to achieve. Rather than focusing on pensioners and the Blue Wall, our allegiance to a brighter (and liberal) Britain must start by realising we must tap into radical centrism, rather than the uncertain kind we are pursuing. Rather than reacting, we must set the agenda; rather than finger-pointing, we must explain; rather than ducking questions, it needs open debate. This is paramount for a healthy democracy. I think it is becoming less of a hot take to claim that if we want to prevent liberal democracy’s flame extinguishing, then we cannot afford managerial timidity – the material and psychological conditions that allow the loss of trust in institutions must be addressed urgently and at pace.

Many who work do not have the luxury of time, nor the patience to read through think-tank reports and make definitive conclusions about why the ambulance takes hours to arrive, or why they cannot find affordable accommodation in the city they have called home their entire life. Politicians themselves barely grasp it, and even if they do, they flip figures to fit their ideological agendas, which has been paralysing our politics for at least a decade. Talks of a ‘new kind of politics’ by any incoming Prime Minister must give details on what that means for the average person, rather than being another soundbite.

I am not sure whether it was the stunts that stood out to me amid the tense political climate, or the overarching message in the Humanists’ conference on Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society, which sold the ideals of liberalism to me that led me to find the Liberal Democrats appealing. Despite being engaged in this blog for years now, which successfully radicalised me into realising how much I resonated with liberalism, there was no compelling reason to suddenly join. As a young person, just like many others of my peers, I feel so small in the ability to contribute to our politics – even though it defines our every day. Although many understand the importance, and some surely choose not to bother with it, it often feels like politics is a hostile environment – one where they cannot fit, for what are political parties but a mould of sycophants? I feel that the Liberal Democrats, despite not being a part of the national conversation at the moment, are at the ideal position for redefining political discourse in our country. Why is it that despite Britons on average describing themselves as centrists, this party is irrelevant to the average Briton?

It is a story based on subjective experience that underpins news attention, social media retention, and electoral success undoubtedly, but we cannot achieve a better, more liveable Britain by being hostage to segments of society that only neglect the other. We must sadly accept that people have far lower attention spans to politicians, due to broken promises and perceptions. However, this should not be a reason to ditch sensible politics based on the virtue of compromise, especially when it is reflexively easier to point-score against those of different political persuasions instead. At a time when liberalism is being tested – we must redefine a liberalism fit for today.

To increase faith in our democracy, as a party that believes in the decentralisation of power, we must advocate for democratisation at every level, everywhere to rebuild trust.

• What if there were citizens’ assemblies to debate issues that are pervasive and often toxic in our current political climate. The OECD views assemblies as a vehicle to bring people together from a cross-section of society to learn, deliberate, and produce recommendations on complex public issues. The information gathered can funnel into consultations and policymaking.
• What if we allowed local people to take part in council meetings by sortition? The decisions taken by local governments are felt directly by residents. To get them involved in local priorities or helping determine whether council tax goes into roads or schools, will undoubtedly renew a sense of civic responsibility and engagement. It will make decisions taken at a local level, whether it is a housing project, or the annual budget, more legitimate.
• What if democracy was not limited to the political sphere? There is the case for economic democracy – we can adopt policies that give workers and communities more say over production, profits, and the direction of the company, rather than leaving that power concentrated with shareholders or owners. We can replicate Germany’s co-determination model, whereby its essence found its way onto the 2017 Conservative manifesto by wanting to set up worker representation on company boards, before it was ditched due to business pushback. Even the Tories at that point in time realised that it is not a revolutionary premise, but a pragmatic policy, compatible with capitalism.
• What if we lived in a property-owning democracy? As someone who believes in social democracy, albeit with a liberal edge, I want to resurrect the importance of democratising the economy that the Liberal Party of the 70s appreciated, which we have now forgotten. They advocated for a ‘co-operative economy’ to break the cycle of industrial conflict and stagflation. Their platform promoted ‘industrial democracy’, mandatory profit-sharing, and co-ownership schemes to shift away from traditional capitalism and state-controlled socialism. I am new to the party but to anybody who is interested, we could establish an internal group based on reigniting that lost passion for economic democracy.

I believe that we must balance priorities of welfare, whilst ensuring that entrepreneurial spirit and ambition is sustained; there is the case for social housing, whilst ensuring we have the capacity and means to build at scale; there is the case for reforming the failing providers of transport and water, whilst ensuring it is not a strain on the state and public purse; there is the case for controlling immigration, whilst ensuring support with integration. In short, there is the case for understanding that solutions to problems are not black and white – they are often grey.

I am writing this whilst travelling in the heart of Hungary, a country that has chosen freedom once again. From here, overlooking the Parliament of Budapest, it is impossible to ignore how Hungary has wrestled with democratic backsliding: civil society, human rights, and independent institutions were weakened under an autocratic style of government, and the country is now facing the difficult task of restoring liberal democracy, but they remain hopeful. Back in Britain, we must stop pretending as if we have lost the battle and cherish what we have – this could be a starting point, rather than being at odds with what we have, as populism of all kinds seeks to dismantle.

I believe that it is paramount for the political centre to address the material deprivation and psychological insecurity contributing to extremism in all its shapes and forms by doing what the establishment it has created has always failed to do – being humbled and coming back down to earth to listen and learn.

* Dennis Delice is a Liberal Democrat member and medical student in Sunderland.