Tim Farron’s speech to the IPPR: Liberalism: an optimistic confidence in the capacity of people to make the most of their lives

Both Liberal Democrat leadership candidates are giving speeches to the IPPR think tank over the next few days. Here is Tim Farron’s in full. 

IPPR has always been one of the leading think tanks on the progressive wing of British politics. I welcome the interest you’ve shown in Liberalism, and I hope that in the next few years you will further develop the arguments in your 2007 book on Liberalism, Beyond Liberty.

Now let me be frank. The election on May 7th was an utter disaster for the Liberal Democrats. In terms of our vote and number of MPs we are back to the level of the 1970 general election, when the Liberal Party won six seats on 7.5 per cent of the vote, compared to this year’s eight seats and 7.9 per cent.

Compared to the last election, in 2010, we lost almost two-thirds of our vote and over 85 per cent of our MPs. There is no other occasion in the entire history of the Liberal Democrats or the Liberal Party, stretching back to the early nineteenth century, on which we have lost such a high proportion of our vote or our seats.

It’s therefore entirely reasonable to ask the question: what is the point of the Liberal Democrats? Do we have a role to play in a country which appears to have rejected us so comprehensively?

It won’t come as a surprise to you that I think we do! And I’m not alone. Since the election Party membership has surged by more than 30 percent, we are the fastest growing political party in the UK – that 18,000 people have, without being prompted, had the same thought, at the same time, and then done something about it… well that’s a phenomenon, indeed it is a movement.  That’s more than just encouraging – it’s a signal that there are so many people out there who are Liberals at heart, who understand the threat that Liberalism faces, who think Liberalism’s worth fighting for and who see the Liberal Democrats as their vehicle and their voice.

Even The Guardian has now reached that conclusion. Having compared us during the campaign to ‘rinse aid in a dishwasher … probably useful, surely not essential’ – they decided after the election just three weeks later that, ‘in the absence of a liberal party, one would have to be invented – and indeed … one will now have to be reinvented and rebuilt’.

The result on May 7th might have been a rejection of the Liberal Democrats, but it was not a rejection of Liberalism. Rather, it was a consequence of our decision in 2010 to enter into coalition with our historic political enemies. We did the right thing by our country, and I am proud of Nick and all that we achieved, but our party was hugely damaged by the perceived submerging of our identity and by the tuition fees issue which undermined the electorate’s trust in us.  Our election campaign did not help too much either: a campaign which seemed to say  that we were desperate to get back into government and didn’t much mind with whom, while wholly failing to communicate what we stood for and what we believed.  We said something about what we would do, but we did not tell people who we are.

I want to be very clear, though: I am not repudiating the coalition. We were right to enter into coalition in 2010 and can be proud of what we achieved. Indeed, we proved that coalition government can be stable and successful and that people should not fear coalition in the future.  But I spoke about all this at length to the Gladstone Club a couple of weeks back, so you’ll forgive me for not repeating myself here.

In fact we achieved a lot for Liberalism in the coalition. The Agreement included: a rise in the income tax threshold to £10,000; the pupil premium to give extra resources for children from disadvantaged backgrounds; restoration of the earnings links for the state pension; a banking levy and reform of the banking system; investment in renewable energy; the immediate cancellation of plans for a third runway at Heathrow; an end to the detention of children for immigration purposes; the dropping of plans for identity cards; agreement to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for overseas aid by 2013; the introduction of a fixed-term parliament of five years; and reform of the House of Lords.

With the exception of Lords reform, every single one of those objectives was achieved. And we managed more in the five years that followed: same-sex marriage, the world’s first Green Investment Bank, the triple lock for pensions, two million apprenticeships, free schools meals for the youngest pupils, and much more. I don’t believe any of that would have happened without Liberal Democrats.

And that’s just the positive things we achieved; I don’t have time to list all the Tory commitments we blocked. Over the next five years people will see exactly what a difference we made. In fact, the last six weeks have shown pretty clearly what an outstanding job Nick Clegg and his team did.

So why did we do so badly in the election? Ask random members of the public what they remember about the coalition, and will they list any of those achievements? While we were sweating over our best policies, people weren’t listening. Tuition fees created a barrier – like those force fields in Science Fiction films. We fired our best policies and achievements – and they were brilliant policies and achievements – and they just glanced off the electorate because the tuition fees barrier – that lack of trust – was too strong.

So we need a fresh start. We have to prove, from first principles, why Liberalism in Britain still matters. So I’ll start by defining what I mean by Liberalism – what are the underlying beliefs and values that underpin our approach.

All political philosophies rest on a view of human nature. The Liberal view is an optimistic one. We are not naïve about human beings, but we are not cynical and negative either. We believe that people do not need an overbearing state to help them do right. When afforded the freedom, dignity and respect that is due to all individuals, people generally show an enormous capacity to use their talents for good.

We believe that, as rational beings, individuals are capable of judging their own self-interest. Indeed, they are the only ones able so to judge; no one else, whether politicians, priests or officials, can do that so well. The enabling society is therefore one in which each individual has the freedom to pursue their own ends as they judge best.

My first core value, therefore, is liberty – the right of people to make the most of their lives: free to develop their talents, to say what they think and to protest against what they dislike according to their own values, free of a controlling, intrusive state and of a stifling conformity, and free to choose their own occupation or to set up their own business. A diverse society is a stronger society.

This liberty must be protected with a framework of law. We have a steadfast commitment to human rights, because there are some things no government should ever be allowed to do to anyone, because the rule of law is the bedrock of freedom and prosperity, and because people are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect whatever their nationality or background.

Since Liberals believe that every individual is of equal value, we are internationalists from principle. We believe that the free movement of people and the free exchange of ideas, goods and services across national boundaries enrich people’s lives, broaden their horizons and help to bring nations together in shared understanding. We believe that immigration is a blessing and not a curseMy second core value is democracy – but by democracy, I mean much more than just a mechanism for counting votes. I mean a spirit of equality, openness and debate, a coming together to decide our future fairly and freely, without being dominated by entrenched interests or financial power. A state that supports freedom has to be a democratic state, with power dispersed as widely as possible and built up from below, in which politics is not an activity confined to a tiny elite but something everyone can take their part in, as and when they choose. And we believe in the decentralisation of power – both political and economic – to the lowest level consistent with effective government, because the more locally an institution operates, the more responsive and transparent it can become.

My third core value is fairness. Every individual is entitled to respect, whatever their income, way of life, beliefs or sexuality. That means that the state must treat citizens fairly – whether in the way police officers deal with young people on the streets, the way Jobcentres treat benefits claimants, or the way the tax authorities treat small businesses. It means fairness in other aspects of life, too, such as employees having a say over their conditions of work.But liberty and democracy and fairness alone are not enough, because people’s ability to realise their own goals is critically affected by their circumstances. Nothing robs you of your liberty more than poverty, ill-health, poor housing, or a lack of education.

This isn’t just about high-quality public services and an effective welfare safety net, vital though they are. An unequal society – and Britain has one of the most unequal in the Western world – is weaker not just for those at the bottom of the pile but for everyone. The citizens of a less equal society suffer from poorer health, lower educational attainments, higher crime rates, and lower levels of trust and co-operation than their more equal counterparts. Government therefore needs to act to reduce inequalities in income and wealth.  Inequality is not just immoral, it is impractical – it wastes the talent of the diverse people and places of our country.

My fourth core value is environmentalism. Climate change, pollution and the degradation of the natural world pose one of the biggest threats to our welfare, to our economy and to our freedom that we have ever seen. We have to act both at home and internationally to promote green technologies, producing clean energy and transport, stopping the waste of natural resources, and protecting nature. The market by itself cannot achieve this; government action is needed across the board to set standards, provide new infrastructure and promote innovation – and in the process build a competitive economy and improve everyone’s quality of life. If we are going to defeat climate change, we need bold action. What the Green Party don’t get is that we won’t create and sustain the positive action we need on climate change with a message of doom and gloom.  We need to communicate hope – because going green can bring a better quality of life for everybody, whether they’re climate wonks or not.

This leads on to my fifth core value: quality of life– because some things, like the beauty of the natural world, or music and poetry and art, or spending time with friends and family, should never be sacrificed on the altar of profit or growth. A society in which people feel happier and more satisfied in life is one which is answering the needs of its citizens.

Where else in the political spectrum are these core values represented? Is there another party that fights for liberty, democracy, fairness, internationalism, environmentalism and quality of life?

It shouldn’t take too long to dismiss the Conservatives. David Cameron’s attempts to present himself as a liberal Tory, hugging huskies, hugging hoodies, building the big society, are long gone. Whether he really believes in any of that I strongly doubt – but if he does, he shows no signs of reining in Theresa May’s introduction of the so-called snoopers’ charter that we blocked.

He stands behind George Osborne’s assault on the welfare state, with £12 billion of cuts to who-knows-what benefits to come – a Chancellor who could with a straight face claim that ‘we’re all in it together’ while cutting the top rate of income tax. Cameron fought the election on a manifesto that simultaneously promised to cut ‘carbon emissions as cheaply as possible, to save you money’ and to end all public subsidy to onshore wind, the cheapest form of renewable electricity – therefore ensuring that the average cost of renewables will go up, while losing jobs and investment.

He has no interest in reforming the electoral system that gave his party a majority on 37 per cent of the vote. He will block any attempt at reform of party finances or election spending limits, to make sure that the bankers and hedge fund managers who fund his party can buy future elections too.

He won the election not on a story of optimism, of a plan for ensuring better times for families and communities, but on a narrative of fear, of a Labour government propped up by Scottish Nationalists – in the process claiming that a vote for the SNP was illegitimate and thereby fanning the flames of Scottish separatism. When it comes to a choice between the good of their party and the good of the country Conservatives always put their party first.

What about Labour? Liberal Democrats have tended to see the Labour Party as closer to our own progressive aims, partly because we have more of a history of cooperation with Labour governments – in Scotland from 1999 to 2007, in Wales from 2001 to 2003, or in the Lib-Lab Pact in the 1970s.

And I think they score a little better than the Tories on some of my tests: the last years of the last Labour government saw positive developments in environmental policy, they fought the last election on a redistributive package that nicked one of its main planks – the mansion tax – from us, and they’re generally supportive of UK membership of the EU.

But just remember what they were like in government. Even ignoring taking Britain into an illegal war, their record in other respects was unimpressive. Income inequality actually rose during New Labour’s term in office, while the seeds of the banking crisis were sown in their failure to regulate effectively the financial services sector.

Their record on civil liberties was shameful; they were just as eager as the Tories to encroach ever more on freedom in the name of the war on terror. Even their cheerleader in the quality press, the Guardian, recognised, in an editorial on 15th May, that the Labour Party ‘is just as authoritarian as it is libertarian, and – with the impressive exception of the early Blair years – has been constitutionally conservative through much of its history’. The Guardian obviously forgot, incidentally, that Blair’s constitutional programme was set for him by the Cook–Maclennan Agreement, drawn up with the Liberal Democrats. In the last Parliament Labour joined with the Tories to block reform of the House of Lords and were at best lukewarm, and often hostile, over the AV referendum.

What about UKIP? I’m not aware we share any value with them; they are the polar opposite of everything we stand for. And while the SNP is unlike UKIP in many ways, in one way they are the same: they exalt the race over the individual, they value people in terms of their nationality, not their character, they foster intolerance of others just because they are different.

Finally, the Greens. I admire their dedication and their commitment to environmental aims, but at base they value the planet over its human inhabitants, which leads them into authoritarian and illiberal territory. It’s attractive to some because it promises a short cut to solve the huge problems of climate change, or inequality. But it isn’t rooted in a reality that understands how people behave – emotionally or politically. Policy by wishful thinking or authoritarian dictat ultimately doesn’t work – and I fear that many of their policies haven’t been rigorously thought through . Ultimately though, my concerns with the Greens are that they simply aren’t liberal. Free choice isn’t an inconvenience – it’s a fundamental part of what it means to be human, yet for the Greens it’s treated almost as an add on.

So my conclusion is clear: while there may well be other parties with whom we can agree on particular policies, with whom we could cooperate in campaigns – for example for a yes vote in the EU referendum – there is no other party that is remotely Liberal in its basic philosophy, that shares our beliefs and values. So if Liberalism is worth fighting for, then logically the only course open to us is to rebuild the Liberal Democrats into a force than can fight for it effectively.

And in turn that means building a campaigning movement, not just a political machine. It means ensuring that all of our campaigns – to stay in the EU, to retain the Human Rights Act, to defend the pupil premium because it attacks inequality, to oppose the Tories undermining the welfare states and selling off housing association homes, to promote green energy instead of shale gas – must be underpinned with a positive message of belief in this country, in its citizens and their communities. Our policy must be not just about what we will do but whom we are.

This has always been the great cause of Liberalism, a creed which is now needed more than ever – an optimistic confidence in the capacity of ordinary people to make the most of their lives, fulfil their talents and realise their dreams, and the belief that it is the duty of government – active, ambitious, liberal government – to make this possible, to create the conditions in which people and their communities can flourish

I want to lead a party that motivates people to care about great causes, not dull managerialism.   To inspire the movement that has come about since May 8th.

I want to argue that inequality is wrong because every individual is equally precious, because inequality crushes the spirits of those at the bottom of the pile, because it creates a poorer society where the bonds between people count for less, because it is a stupid waste of talent, effort and resource.  It is a brake on prosperity and work.

I want to campaign for a bold environmental policy, not just because I believe that climate change must be tackled, though I do, but because green energy and transport means cleaner air and water, because green products and green exports will be the ones that succeed in global markets, because, as David Attenborough put it, ‘the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.’

I want to persuade people to vote for the EU, not just because of jobs and trade, important though they are, but because the European Union is the most successful peace process in human history, because we do not resent our neighbours, we love them; because open societies allow the human experience to widen and the human spirit to flourish, because it is better to treat foreigners as sisters and brothers, not as people to be feared or scapegoated when things go wrong.

None of this will be easy, it will be a long hard slog, but I am confident that it’s possible. Remember, there was only seven years between David Steel taking over the Liberal leadership in 1976 after the devastation of the Thorpe scandal and the Alliance’s record-breaking vote in 1983. I don’t see why our recovery shouldn’t be much more swift than we fear, but it is not a given, we will have to earn it.

We’ve done it before, in the 1950s and ‘60s, when the Liberals under Jo Grimond recovered from near oblivion to challenge the Tory-Labour stranglehold on power; in the 1970s, when we adopted the approach of community politics, building on our local roots, fighting alongside local campaigners to make life better in a myriad of little ways for individuals and their communities; and in the 1980s, when I was a proud foot soldier as Paddy Ashdown and colleagues rebuilt the Liberal Democrats from the ashes of merger to argue the case for a fairer, freer, greener Britain.

In each case we recovered because we knew that there was a cause worth fighting for: Liberalism. Liberalism is unique, it belongs to no other party.   I am not about to allow the movement of Gladstone, Lloyd George and Grimond to die on my watch.  Britain needs Liberals, it needs Liberal Democrats.  Our cause must be fought for. I hope to lead that fightback.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Excellent. This is just what we need. Go Tim! 🙂

  • Conor McGovern 25th Jun '15 - 7:15pm

    ‘Over the next five years people will see exactly what a difference we made. In fact, the last six weeks have shown pretty clearly what an outstanding job Nick Clegg and his team did.’
    – Not 2 marks out of 10, then?

  • He had high praise for the party in Wales too:

    “What we have is a peculiar situation where Labour have exactly 50% of the Assembly Members, and so Kirsty Williams – to her immense credit and huge impact – goes and fights or something every year at Budget time… The poorest kids in Wales get funding for their schools because Kirsty Williams went and dragged it out of the Labour Government…

    “Everybody knows there are going to be free transport passes for younger people from this autumn because Kirsty dragged it out of the Labour Government and that is good retail politics and we could learn a thing or two from Kirsty.”


  • Yes, excellent stuff from Tim to raise our eyes above the parapet. There’s a lot more to Tim than broken pavements in Kendal. Just two very minor quibbles.

    1. “‘The movement of LLG” . Aye, well, without wanting to open old wounds, I’m afraid most historians argue that LLG had the consistency of a chameleon after August 1914 and did more to destroy the Liberal Party single handed with his Coalition antics than anyone else – nor was he ‘The Man Who Won the War’ – his self-serving War Memoirs are a great fiction read,

    2. Go easy on the Greens. Better to have a constructive dialogue with them. They occupy a lot of what ought to be natural Liberal ground – and don’t underestimate Nicola and the SNP. Putting the nationalism and (some very nasty) computer trolls on one side, on austerity they occupy ground that Liberals ought to be giving deep thought to ,

  • Sammy O'Neill 25th Jun '15 - 9:25pm

    “While we were sweating over our best policies, people weren’t listening.”

    Yup, it’s the public’s fault Tim. Not yours or the other party bigwigs.

    I honestly am so disappointed at everything Farron has said so far. It’s like listening to Tony Blair- full of lovely semantics and vague pledges/”principles”, but totally lacking on substance. I’m not convinced he actually gets why the public booted most of his parliamentary colleagues out. Obsessing over the HRA and EU is not going to win millions of voters back to the Lib Dems. Waging an unrelenting campaign to address issues that actually matter to normal people like housing, low pay, mental health, old age care, educational opportunity, graduate prospects, benefit reform, energy bills etc is what we need. We’re not going to get it under Tim at all by the looks of it, I’m not sure we’d get it under Norman either (more hope perhaps). The party rules on who can stand for leader need addressing.

  • Sir Norfolk Passmore 25th Jun '15 - 10:08pm

    I’m not a Tim supporter, Sammy, as other threads make clear. But he plainly wasn’t blaming the public. He was saying that (as a party) we were talking to each other and not engaging the wider public. That’s our fault as a party – including but not limited to him as President- and he’s acknowledging that which I’m glad about.

    Tim’s an eloquent speaker and a decent man. But I worry talking the talk isn’t enough. I worry he can wax lyrical about history but that on the frontier liberal issues where we need to march into the sound of gunfire – gay marriage a few years back, the choice to die in the present debate – his instincts are a little askew. And I worry that, when given the chance to put his liberal principles into practice in Government, he played a long game rather than rolling up his sleeves. Doesn’t make him a bad person or poor politician by any stretch – but it worries me.

  • A very impressive, and surely sincere speech by Mr Farron, I find myself in agreement with virtually all of it. I agree strongly with his “force field” analogy re. Tuition Fees. I believe that The Fees about-turn has defined the LibDems in the eyes of voters as untrustworthy — from 2010 to the present day. Voters’ trust needs to be rebuilt, and that will take time and will be a hard slog.

  • I think the place where Tim showed that his instincts were NOT askew was that he knew that the very first ingredient in successful politics is the trust of the electorate. This is more important than any specific policy and most of the electorate think so too.

    And the surest way to lose trust in an instant is to break a pledge made, in a blaze of publicity, to individual electors in individual constituencies. Especially when that pledge was an obvious vote winner in a number of key constituencies, including that of the Leader…..

    To be perfectly honest if we do not regain that trust and do it quickly, all the talk of policies on this Forum will be completely irrelevant (along with discussion of how many BAME MPs we will have in the future). Zero MPs and a handful of votes give you nothing. I think there are quite a number of people in the Party who have still not grasped that we could easily be down to 1 or 2 MPs in 2020 and no MEPs at all if we make the wrong decision now.

  • Andrew. I agree.

  • Matt (Bristol) 25th Jun '15 - 10:43pm

    It’s nice to see a more thoughtful Tim setting out a definition of Liberalism, although there are hints of the bombast and dismissiveness I find his least attractive characteristic (and I have to admit he is the candidate I thought when this whole thing started I was most likely to vote for).

    I think he at least is honest when he says he finds Labour most easy to contemplate working with. But I think he could be marginally less rude about UKIP — they do have an argument (not an irrefutable one, nor a completely internally consistent) when it comes to the subject of democracy, one of his main points; whilst they are U-turning opportunistic populists a lot of the time, we do have some common ground with them (in particular the Carswellite wing, if it does indeed extend much beyond Carswell himself) on the issue of letting the people have their say – although I think we view more sceptically. There are similar points to be made on the SNP and Plaid. And if he’s going to mention the non-UK-wide parties, a little nod to the Alliance would only be polite. We are NOT the only Liberal party in the UK.

    But this is quibbling, and it’s a good resetting of the clock from the rhetoric of the coalition years. I do find it interesting that this speech deliberately limits itself to a criticism of Labour’s failure to regulate banking — NOT the Clegg / Alexander narrative of Where Gordon Went Wrong, at all.

    … And that’s probably the nicest I’ve ever been about UKIP; or ever will be.

  • Donald Smith 26th Jun '15 - 12:03am

    Not a bad speech, but I agree with Sammy – “Waging an unrelenting campaign to address issues that actually matter to normal people like housing, low pay, mental health, old age care, educational opportunity, graduate prospects, benefit reform, energy bills etc is what we need” And I also agree with Sir Norfolk about Tim’s Liberal instincts and has remaining in the purity of the back benches than “getting down and dirty” in government. Still – I will wait to see what Norman Lamb has to say. I don’t want to hear about the last 5 years but the next 5 years and something that brings a Liberal perspective on the key issues.

  • Jane Ann Liston 26th Jun '15 - 1:22am

    Was Mr Farron ever asked to sully his hands on the front bench? If not, he can hardly be blamed for not being in Government, can he?

  • Sir Norfolk Passmore 26th Jun '15 - 7:00am

    Jane – he made clear he was unavailable for selection, and consequently wasn’t selected. There’s no serious question that a job would’ve been made available (as one of our more articulate, capable MPs at that time) had he said that’s what he wanted.

  • Christopher Haugh 26th Jun '15 - 8:33am

    Hurrah! Tim has got the message that new members observing the GE must have been telling the party
    The electorate has to be engaged with the general principles of liberalism. Policies can then be introduced and defined in constant reference to those principles
    At the last GE people did not have a clue just what the party stood for.

  • Tim seems to be following in the footsteps of Charles Kennedy – and that’s a good thing. He will pick the big issues [hopefully he will not have wars to include] and anti-austerity is clearly the key target at the centre of his campaigns in UK [whether leader or not]. As Sammy says, “Waging an unrelenting campaign to address issues that actually matter to normal people like housing, low pay, mental health, old age care, educational opportunity, graduate prospects, benefit reform, energy bills etc is what we need.” When the Tories ‘mess up even more’ we will need our leader to work with other parties, in our own distinctive and open way, so we are involved in the big issues which will affect almost everyone on society.

  • Simon McGrath 26th Jun '15 - 10:28am

    @Sammy and Tony “Waging an unrelenting campaign to address issues that actually matter to normal people like housing, low pay, mental health, old age care, educational opportunity, graduate prospects, benefit reform, energy bills etc is what we need”

    You mean we should copy Labour’s campaign from 2010-2015? How did that work out ?

  • Stephen Howse 26th Jun '15 - 10:42am

    ‘Over the next five years people will see exactly what a difference we made. In fact, the last six weeks have shown pretty clearly what an outstanding job Nick Clegg and his team did.’
    – Not 2 marks out of 10, then?’

    He gave us 8/10 for what we’d achieved in Coalition and 2/10 for the politics of it. The General Election result (and every other set of election results 2010-15) has proven him dead right (and Paddy, incidentally, dead wrong for slapping him down so publicly).

  • Richard Underhill 26th Jun '15 - 4:04pm

    Sammy O’Neill : ” The party rules on who can stand for leader need addressing.”

    The deadline for conference motions is the end of this month.
    Kirsty Williams, Catherine Bearder and Caroline Pidgeon should be able to stand if they want to.

    Ballot papers have arrived.
    Both candidates are good, but the system needs reform as well and the leadership candidates should pledge to do so now and push it through.

  • Richard Underhill 26th Jun '15 - 4:23pm

    My wife got a letter from Baroness Shirley Williams, but I did not.
    Lots of men respect her.
    Or was the stuffing of envelopes faulty?

  • @ Simon McGrath

    That may have been Labour’s campaign from 2010-2015 but they were so afraid to mention it that the electorate missed it! The SNP went on an anti-austerity campaign and Labour and us both went on “not quite so austere as the Tories, whatever they are proposing”. As a result we both lost nearly all our seats in Scotland and both parties might have done better in England (in my view) if they had been seen as a real alternative to the Tories. It is not as if there was actually a surge in support for the Tories. They lost votes to UKIP but the catastrophic loss in trust for us meant that they picked similar numbers up to replace them.

  • Paul Holmes 26th Jun '15 - 8:40pm

    @Simon Mcgrath: Labour’s campaign performance 2010-2015 was pretty lacklustre primarily due to a very poor Leader and their wipeout Scotland at the hands of the SNP.

    But tell me Simon -how did the ‘True Liberal’ campaign you have been so supportive of go between 2010 -2015? Labour may have been wiped out in Scotland but I seem to recall we got wiped out everywhere in 2015 and did little better in 2011, 2012, 2013 in 2014.

    Are you seriously suggesting we should continue with the approach of recent years? A bit like the survivors of the Titanic urging the Captain of the rescue ship top go full steam ahead for the next iceberg because it worked so well last time!

  • Andrew
    “the very first ingredient in successful politics is the trust of the electorate”.

    100% !
    TRUST is THE single most important value for the electorate – without it, building anything meaningful is impossible.
    After the tuition fees betrayal – the electorate simply stopped listening – pure and simple.
    This is now the biggest challenge and every decision made, at every level must never ever forget this simple fact.

  • Andrew “100% !
    TRUST is THE single most important value for the electorate – without it, building anything meaningful is impossible.
    After the tuition fees betrayal – the electorate simply stopped listening – pure and simple.
    This is now the biggest challenge and every decision made, at every level must never ever forget this simple fact.”

    Sadly the great and the good in the LD party are deaf to any comment which includes the word ‘trust’. Until they open their eyes and ears the Party will keep on losing MPs.

  • Phyllis
    “Sadly the great and the good in the LD party are deaf to any comment which includes the word ‘trust’. Until they open their eyes and ears the Party will keep on losing MPs”
    Well, if that’s true, every single member will need to work tirelessly to change it – otherwise Norman and Tim will be riding to work on a Tandem in 5 years time – and that’s in nobody’s interest (including theirs)!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Big Tall Tim
    We're not so close in philosophy to the Greens or Labour that we should stand down for them. Both are centralist and statist. Yes, I'm in politics because of wh...
  • Jeff
    The government has rushed headlong into trade deals with Cambodia and Cameroon, both of which have been sanctioned by the EU and US respectively,.. Th...
  • Brad Barrows
    I’m sure I’m not the only person who has been disappointed by the Liberal Democrat’s position regarding the EU. I would have expected a firm commitment to...
  • Paul Barker
    Can I remind everyone that Private Eye has a long history of very Right-Wing, very Nasty Politics plus Misogyny, Homophobia & Racism. It has also promited d...
  • expats
    How does one stirise Johnson?...After all, in life, he's already a scruffy, overweight, caricacture of a 'real' PM and that seems to why he's PM.....