The General Election has left most Liberal Democrats feeling flat and hugely disappointed. We had hoped to create a springboard in the earlier Local Government elections, but fell short. (In many cases, like mine, frustratingly close, but still short.)
So now, with our commitment to enter no deals with either Theresa May [insert current Tory party leader here] nor Jeremy Corbyn, the party will continue to struggle to find any independent influence.
A weak and wobbly minority government, with its damaged, exposed Prime Minister and with an official opposition living in financial La-La Land, mean that the Liberal Democrats should be at least seen as a viable alternative opposition.
Instead, we have (in sad circumstances) lost our leader, and don’t have a universally appealing candidate with which to replace him. The Tories are likely to change their leader before their conference in October, but only have appalling candidates with which to replace her. Bizarre, isn’t it, that Corbyn is the most stable party leader!
And if there is another General Election, what likelihood is a vastly different outcome? Labour would say they would get elected. But that ignores that many former Labour supporters held their noses at the Polls to stop May, not to support Corbyn. Who wants another Election, only to return another hung parliament? (Not Brenda from Bristol, that’s for sure.)
There is one key issue for this Parliament – Brexit. We now have Phillip Hammond, with increased influence, proposing a much “softer” approach. Indeed, between him and Keir Starmer, there is now little to differentiate.
For example, although they mistakenly say, “We’re leaving the EU and therefore the Customs Union” (cf. Turkey is member of Customs Union but not EU), they are both agreed that they might re-join it. They agree, in principle, in the value of transitional arrangements to move from membership to a new relationship with the EU. There is a distinct shift toward congruity driven by aversion to economic self-harm.
Regarding the border requirement in Ireland, we should be pointing out that Norway and Sweden have a working soft border – by dent of Norway’s membership of EFTA and thereby both belonging to the Single Market, the European Economic Area.
Why then, couldn’t our Parliamentarians, who now have a much stronger position, create a “Coalition of Common Sense”, to strategically construct, inform and instruct our Brexit minister and his negotiating “team” in Brussels, along these lines? There are enough MPs on both sides of the House who were Remainers and who support a soft exit to carry this through. (And of course, demonstrate their Parliamentary Sovereignty.)
The LibDems could then quietly drop our unpopular demand to have a further referendum, on the basis that Brexit terms were being decided by Parliament, not by the Executive.
Undoubtedly, the Brexit negotiations are the most important that the Country has undertaken in the 70 years or more. In times of war, we have created governments of National Unity. Perhaps it is time for us to propose something of this nature, something we might regard as a Coalition of Common Sense.
* Brian Milnes is a South Cambs exec member, newbie and candidate
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Iain Donaldson
Peter Martin
31 Comments
Oh dear a terrible negative campaign resulting in terrible results but still the knocking of Corbyn here “living in la la la land”. “Bizarre that Corbyn in the most stable leader?”
With 40% of voters supporting Corbyn and less than 7% the Libdems perhaps it may have been time for LibDems to take stock. If you still find it is bizarre perhaps the problem is not with Corbyn but a little closer to home. It seems even when the LibDems are continuing to lose voter support LibDems still believe themselves to be right and others wrong.
As in a previous post about the damage to LibDems of a negative LibDem campaign, there still appears to be no appetite for a change in direction. Well don’t hold your breath for a LibDem surge. For two years the LibDems have adopted a complacent and dismissive attitude towards Corbyn.
Carry on mocking him by all means rather than looking to see where you could work together and in so doing consign the LibDems return to the fringe of British politics.
Are Corbyn’s policies LaLa land well yes and no. With an economy firing on all cylinder the answer would be no but with one hobbled by Brexit I’m afraid the answer is yes they are.
Dave
It was Labour’s Economic Policies that I describe as financial La-La Land. (e.g. McDonnell’s suggestion that he can borrow at “zero net cost”.)
And they are being inconsistent within their Shadow Cabinet about what they are proposing as an “alternate” approach to Brexit. (So far they have acquiesced and acceded to the Government’s approach. Cf. Three Line Whip on Article 50,)
And it appears that John McDonnell doesn’t really understand the functions of the EFTA, EEA or the Customs Union.
Brian I appreciated that but there are many economists who disagree with – see link to The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jun/03/the-big-issue-labour-manifesto-what-economy-needs
Of course, like religion, you get different answers depending on who you ask. But Corbyn success in offering a compelling alternative to austerity was a successful as the LibDems sniping at both Tory and Labour alike was a comprehensive failure.
No room for complacency amongst the LibDems you might think. Sadly I suspect the next campaign will be little more than a rerun for LibDems. They are tarnished by the Coalition and seemingly chained to Orange bookers whose lack of ambition and fixation on austerity and hammering public sector workers prevents them from adopting bold policies – instead just a random offering of policies with no vision.
Dave
As it is only the MPs who can produce a leader it is up to them to come up with somebody of vision. I saw vision in Norman’s article, but he is not standing. I saw little vision in Vince’s opening statement, and he is standing. Come on the rest of you, do something.
@Dave Orbison
“With 40% of voters supporting Corbyn and less than 7% the Libdems perhaps it may have been time for LibDems to take stock. If you still find it is bizarre perhaps the problem is not with Corbyn but a little closer to home. It seems even when the LibDems are continuing to lose voter support LibDems still believe themselves to be right and others wrong.”
That’s a silly argument. Of course Lib Dems believe themselves to be right. The key is to persuade more of the electorate of that as well.
Part of that is explaining more clearly why Corbyn and his brand of Labour is particularly wrong. You seem to think that the Lib Dems were “sniping at both Tory and Labour alike”. I’d like to see some evidence for that (as regards Labour). In contrast I believe that one of our big failures was to give Labour an easy ride on the basis that it was inconceivable that more around 25% of the electorate would be tempted to vote for someone manifestly so wrong.
Before we rush to drop our second referendum plan let’s wait and see how things go. Brexit could become deeply unpopular in those circumstances people may start to cry out for a second referendum!
Dave,
If you think Labour ran a positive election campaign, you weren’t anywhere near it. Labour can’t give up on either Coalition or Tuition fees – too bitter about being tipped out of power after a hugely disappointing 13 years.
You’re probably too young to remember the LibLab pact, but surely you haven’t forgotten who introduced Tuition fees…
Interesting article. But I’m afraid adult, co-operative politics requires everyone to be co-operative. Or at least more than one party. And we’re just not there. On Brexit, I think I agree with Christian.
It’s important that you note we currently have little influence and in the next parliament I would abandon the “no deals” pledge.
On the informal coalition of remainers: yes we should try to use this to stay in the single market but I am not sure what the legal situation is between executive and parliamentary powers. Brexit is complicated.
I think Vince could be a universally appealing candidate, but he is sometimes inconsistent with his values, appearing to be on the left one minute and in the centre the next. People don’t need ideological purity, but a bit more consistency would be good.
Simon the point isn’t whether or not the LibDems believe what they say but do the electorate? The LibDems sustained a crushing 2015 GE followed by a dreadful 2017 GE.
Yet rather than acknowledge anything positive from Corbyn you put his success down to the LibDems giving him an easy ride. This is delusional. To suggest Corbyn has had an easy ride could not be further from reality.
The LibDems, you included, have spent two years mocking him. He has been vilified from day one. Tim Farron has hardly made a speech that didn’t pass on the opportunity of making a snide comment or attack on Corbyn by name. By contrast Corbyn has not reciprocated.
You ask for evidence but you will never see what you refuse to see. There’s even an article on LDV complaining about LibDem negative campaigning.
I think the LibDems are doomed to the fringe incapable of making objective self assessments of their own electoral failings and instead seeking comfort by bizarrely blaming their opponents. No, the failings are all self made. Reap what you so.
@ Brian Milnes,
“an official opposition living in financial La-La Land”
Where the magic money trees grow? No doubt you think that the “common sense” of your title is all you need to come to this conclusion. The problem for us is that our common sense has been developed to guide us through what we need to do as users of currency. If we apply that to the Government, which is an issuer and not a user, we don’t get the right answer.
See if you can work out what that well known Liberal economist Keynes was getting at when he wrote this:
“If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again… the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.”
Was Keynes an inhabitant of financial La-La Land too?
As part of our local party trying to run a General Election campaign we had an impossible task. You can’t run a negative campaign with two targets so we were trying to run a positive one (which is really difficult without information from HQ). If you are trying to get someone to switch to you then you don’t attack what they believe in. I said at an early meeting that if the Tories attacked Jeremy Corbyn it would backfire – no one believed me.
We need to be seen to talk common sense but we also need to be passionate in what we believe in. We need to stop talking about the dangers of Brexit but about the positives about being in the Single Market and the customs union – what we gain not what we lose. People around me keep on saying ‘why wasn’t this said before the Referendum?’ It was but they weren’t listening – they might now if we are seen as the calm voice of reason instead of attacking May and Corbyn.
Hi Brian
I was a lifelong Conservative and I joined the Lib Dems after the Brexit disaster (and for other reasons but I`ll save the autobiography). I appreciate reading something from the Party that is critical of Jeremy Corbyn.
I put my heart and soul into our ultimately unsuccessful campaign in Lewes and got to know my fellow Party members and our brilliant candidate Kelly Marie well. Whilst I love them all dearly I did find there was a disinclination to subject the beard to the sort of scrutiny I felt he deserved.
I`m just about old enough to remember the 70s, (my dad told me the Unions were turning the lights out), during which the post war Butskellism collapsed and the supposed equivalence of the USSR and the USA was a smarty pants commonplace. It was not a view I shared then, and I don’t subscribe to its contemporary manifestation either.
John McDonnell has made it clear that his direction is towards the planned economy, a plan that requires a quite extraordinary fish eye lens through which to view the 20th century. Corbyn`s advisers have belonged to the Communist Party and his fairy tale manifesto contained a sources of funding that simply do not exist, ie “Taxing the rich”. A look at the effect on real life revenue to the exchequer, at various top rates, is enough to dismiss Labour`s claims as sheer delusion in my humble opinion. In fact I regard the wish to invent simple answers along such lines as not little better than other populist myths currently distorting debate he said darkly….. )
I have, I assure you equally despairing anger to direct at Blue-kip and I do see that amongst Corbyn`s fans there is something good and hopeful.
Nonetheless Corbyn`s core philosophy is very far form Liberal and socialism plus timidity is not a good look if the Lib Dems wish to claim desperately the radical centrism that has swept France and should inspire us all
“a disinclination to subject the beard to the sort of scrutiny I felt he deserved.”
“the beard” : That’s exactly the sort of throwaway line which shows lack of personal respect and which cost the Lib Dems votes by the many thousand. Something that we could learn from Mr Corbyn is that courtesy pays.
And another thing to the Gentleman from Lewes …..
” his fairy tale manifesto contained a sources of funding that simply do not exist, ie “Taxing the rich”.
Come on Paul, I can’t believe there’s a shortage of brass in the Lewes constituency.
Go to Glyndebourne, for example, and it costs £ 260 per person to watch La Traviata – and if you want a picnic it’s £75.00 per person plus additional charges for the waiter, the table and the seats. I can’t see many folk from my local foodbank or Grenfell Tower for that matter coughing up those sums. A bit of redistribution to address inequality is well in order.
Contemplate what Lloyd George said about his budget in his Limehouse speech :
“Somebody has got to pay; and then these gentlemen say: Perfectly true; somebody has got to pay but we would rather that somebody were somebody else. We started building; we wanted money to pay for the building; so we sent the hat round. We sent it round amongst the workmen and winders of Derbyshire and Yorkshire, the weavers of High Peak and the Scotsmen of Dumfries who, like all their countrymen, know the value of money. They all dropped in their coppers. We went round Belgravia; and there has been such a howl ever since that it has completely deafened us.”
Brian, “The LibDems could then quietly drop our unpopular demand to have a further referendum, on the basis that Brexit terms were being decided by Parliament, not by the Executive”
Unless another early election gives us the chance to change our MPs’ mandate, then we can’t break this promise. It was not conditional on us winning or being in coalition, we ruled that out during the campaign. That isn’t incompatible with your “Coalition of Common Sense” though. We should still help to get a Brexit deal that has as much support across all the nations of the UK as possible, and a referendum would be the best means of validating that. If we (most likely) don’t persuade Parliament to call that referendum, then whether or not we consider that a deal breaker must depend on the final Brexit terms and how much support they have in the party and the country at that time.
@Dave Orbison
“Simon the point isn’t whether or not the LibDems believe what they say but do the electorate?”
Really? Maybe that’s why I said “That’s a silly argument. Of course Lib Dems believe themselves to be right. The key is to persuade more of the electorate of that as well.”
When you say “He (Corbyn) has been vilified from day one. Tim Farron has hardly made a speech that didn’t pass on the opportunity of making a snide comment or attack on Corbyn by name.” is it really that difficult for you to produce one piece of evidence to support your claim.
In contrast I don’t think the Party attacked Corbyn enough. For example, Corbyn’s longstanding opposition to the EU is clear. His pathetic lack of leadership during the EU Referendum is a matter of record. And yet, although younger voters are strongly in favour of the EU, it was still clear that lot’s of them voted for Corbyn two weeks ago.
The Conservatives weren’t and aren’t going to draw attention to that so it falls to us to “attack” Corbyn (as you would put it) by pointing out to young people his true beliefs on the EU.
@David Raw
“the beard” : That’s exactly the sort of throwaway line which shows lack of personal respect and which cost the Lib Dems votes by the many thousand. Something that we could learn from Mr Corbyn is that courtesy pays.
And is that a mantra that you’ll be following yourself any time soon, David?
David Raw I so agree re ‘the beard’. But Paul is certainly not the only one who adopts the snigger, snigger attitude towards Corbyn. So many on here did and Tim Farron too.
It is student politics at best. What a gulf in comparison with the conduct of Corbyn himself? I lost count of how many anti- Corbyn people told me the more they see and hear him, the more they like him. One of the most common observations was what a decent man he is.
Meanwhile the Tory attack machine ploughed on with attacks on Corbyn aided by the media. How sad that Tim Farron couldn’t raise his game and resist the urge to follow the Tories?
Will the new LibDem leader learn from this? Sadly, I doubt it.
Simon Shaw – the key is to persuade the electorate. But you didn’t, did you. You lost a record number of deposits and the vote fell further. How bad does it have to be before you realise what you are saying might just be wrong?
@David Raw – do residents of Lewes disproportionately go to Glyndebourne? As a comfortably-off opera lover, I go there a couple of times a season (though I think I’ve only the sort of money you quote for last season’s revival of Meistersinger). Overwhelmingly I’d say that those who attend Glyndebourne are drawn from the well-heeled residents of London and the Home Counties and the venue is in that beautiful location for historical reasons.
When I went to see Hipermestra during the election campaign the only posters I saw on the bus-ride from Lewes railway station (timed to coincide with an arrival from London Victoria) were for the Lib Dems.
While I could not infer anything about the wealth of the residents of Lewes from its proximity to Glyndebourne, based on the high ratio of staff to concert-goers I have no doubt that Glyndebourne provides a significant amount of both seasonal and year-round employment for many local residents.
Simon Shaw – “is it really that difficult for you to produce one piece of evidence to support your claim. {Farron attacks on Corbyn]
No. Anything but I thought you were just being awkward. But as you insist, try reading LibDem Voice Fri 26th May “Farron: Corbyn putting politics before people at a time of tragedy”. Simon, I am surprised you have no recall of this as you posted comments on that article. As par for the course you went down the Corbyn and links to IRA smear route. The sort of smear that Lynton Crosby was so keen to push with the Tories. So successful. Interesting that an inspection of the comments on that LDV article show that many contributors took issue with Tim Farron and supported what Corbyn said.
There are many more examples. Try Googling “Farron attacks on Corbyn”. My first hit was Evening Standard 28th April “LibDem Farron calls Jeremy Corbyn ‘the worst leader in political history’. There’s even a video of Tim making his sage predication.
But you know all this of course. Still reading as you invited to look back at some of the LDV blogs I came across so many from your good self so confidently predicting the demise of Labour under Corbyn. What went wrong?
It seems you think the Tim Farron should have used more of the personal attacks on Corbyn. Really? And how well did that work out for the Tories?
Reading some of your past contributions you were adamant that Corbyn would be crushed in an election. Well it did bring a smile to my face, so Simon thanks for the laugh.
“The LibDems could then quietly drop our unpopular demand to have a further referendum, on the basis that Brexit terms were being decided by Parliament, not by the Executive.”
Thus leaving the 48% of voters who voted to remain *completely* unrepresented in Parliament, rather than just largely unrepresented, and showing that we can’t be trusted to stand up for our most important policies? No thank you.
What neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems did was to make the right kind of attack on Corbyn. It was all Crosbyist smears about terrorism, and we joined in.
The voters probably thought “Well, if all you’ve got on this Corbyn fella is that he was a bit soft on the IRA thirty years ago, then you haven’t got much, have you? Let’s face it, we all ended up going a bit soft on the iRA, and as a result, we now have a reasonably just peace in Northern Ireland”.
Actually, we had more than that on the fella. We had the IFS saying that his economic plans wouldn’t work and that manic overspending is not the cure for austerity. We could have used that, and made the charge stick. We didn’t.
@Dave Orbison
Thanks for finally producing an example of where you think “Tim Farron has hardly made a speech that didn’t pass on the opportunity of making a snide comment or attack on Corbyn by name.”
Are you really sure you couldn’t do better?
So Corbyn made a post-Manchester Bombing speech which (for example) the Independent reports as follows:
“Jeremy Corbyn has taken the hugely controversial step of blaming Britain’s foreign wars for terror attacks such as the Manchester suicide bombing.
The Labour leader claimed a link between “wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home”, as he relaunched his party’s election campaign on Friday after the three-day pause.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-attack-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-wars-speech-a7756266.html
You object to what Tim was reported as saying https://www.libdemvoice.org/farron-corbyn-putting-politics-before-people-at-a-time-of-tragedy-54441.html , which was this:
“A few days ago, a young man built a bomb, walked into a pop concert and deliberately slaughtered children. Our children. Families are grieving. A community is in shock.
Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to use that grotesque act to make a political point. I don’t agree with what he says, but I disagree even more that now is the time to say it. That’s not leadership, it’s putting politics before people at a time of tragedy.”
You are claiming that this is wrong of Tim because it is either (i) “snide” or (ii) “attacking Corbyn by name”.
I assume you don’t think it’s “snide”, but the problem is that if you think that a specific person has made a speech with which you disagree strongly, how do you not mention them by name?
So of course it’s attacking Corbyn by name, but only because of the appalling things that Corbyn decided to say.
@ Simon Shaw How’s your long term memory, Simon. Do you remember a politician making this speech a wee while ago ?
…………………………………….. tonight sparked anger in the wake of the London bombings by blaming the Iraq war for increasing terrorism. He said there was no “causal link” between British involvement in the invasion and last week’s attacks on the capital. But he was branded “deeply irresponsible” after saying the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the US president, George Bush, should not be surprised if people drew a link between the war and terror attacks on the UK. He claimed the war had “fuelled the conditions in which terrorism flourishes”, and warned terrorists would use the war as “fodder” for recruitment. The Guardian, 12 July 2005.
I’ll give you a clue. First name starts with a C………, surname starts with K………… Just happened to be our Leader at the time.
Ten months later we won 62 seats, polled 22% and got 6 million votes. I don’t suppose you were one of those six million were you ?
I’m not sure Charles Kennedy had a long term history of supporting this country’s enemies, though.
Incidentally, you do accept that a chunk of those 6 million were never liberals, do you?
@David Allen
“Actually, we had more than that on the fella. We had the IFS saying that his economic plans wouldn’t work and that manic overspending is not the cure for austerity. We could have used that, and made the charge stick. We didn’t.”
That’s absolutely correct. That and Corbyn’s real history over the EU.
That’s why I said “In contrast I don’t think the Party attacked Corbyn enough.”
Once we have the Leadership issue sorted it’s what we should start doing again.
@David Raw
I was one of those 6 million. Though reading Simon Shaw’s “a chunk of those 6 million were never liberals” does make me doubt that I’m authentic enough to vote so again. Was the last election result a curious kind of success, when the party finally managed to rid itself of the wrong kind of voter?
Just a few points.
1. I, like many, was amazed about the turnround in Labour’s electoral fortunes. The mind of the UK’s electorate is unknowable.
2. Corbyn played to his campaigning strength, enthused the young and got out his vote. His voters ignored his ineptitude (e.g. to hold a brief) and his parliamentary colleagues, especially those who voted no confidence in him, have been forced to eat a big slice of humble pie. Fair play to him. I continue to believe he would be an utterly hopeless, hapless Prime Minister.
3. The process of construction of the LibDem manifesto and the statement of our requirement to adhere to it, doesn’t stack up. cf. Electorally disastrous coalition.
4. Of course I want to stick up for ther 48% (and for however many of the 52% that now feel it was a mistake)(and for the voters that didn’t bother, but now wish they had)(and for those young people, like my children, who had no say in their future). It’s a pity Corbyn could find none of that enthusiasm for membership of the EU in the referendum debate. (Or now)
If Parliament is sovereign, it can approve (must approve) any constitutional change. It’s time for the majority of Parliamentarians who support membership of the Single Market and Customs Union to make themselves heard.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-hard-theresa-may-tory-labour-lib-dems-eu-mps-remain-alliance-defeat-a7805581.html