When Tim Farron stood for the leadership two years ago, his winning manifesto was quite internally focused. It had to be. We’d just had what could have been a mortal blow from the electorate. We were all in shock, devastated at the psychological impact of the loss of so many of our heartlands.
We knew we had to pick ourselves up, but in those early weeks, every time we tried to get ourselves off the floor, we couldn’t quite manage it. Then along came Tim with a jolt of electricity, a motivational message that energised us and got us going again. A lot of his manifesto was internally focused – about picking a ward and winning it, about tackling diversity, about how he’d make decisions in the party (with a diverse group of people in the room), and about having a festival of ideas. It was a time of innovation when newbies developed initiatives like Lib Dem Pint and Your Liberal Britain. But it was mainly internal.
Tim has left us in better shape and grew the size of the parliamentary party in an incredibly difficult election for us.
Vince’s manifesto is much more outward looking. He doesn’t really talk about internal stuff at all. It’s all about our positioning to the world.
He uses language about being ambitious for party and country that reminds me of Willie Rennie’s optimistic campaign in Scotland where we won two seats from the SNP. Where we could get that message out in sufficient volume, people liked it. It was full of heart and authenticity and optimism. People want something to look forward to.
Vince concentrates on five policy areas:
Brexit, obviously. It was interesting that in the questions to the press after his first speech this afternoon, he talked about being in a reformed European Union – not the status quo. He didn’t repeat the mistake that Nick made in his debate with Nigel Farage. Even I, as the most passionate remoaner you could imagine, thinks that there are some things the EU does that are mind-bogglingly stupid. Just to start with there’s that daft week in Strasbourg once a month that costs a fortune.
Young people. He shows he understands what is worrying for young people – job insecurity, education, both further and higher and unaffordable housing.
Political reform – he wants radical reform, he says to get rid of patronage and a system that favours the wealthy.
The economy – as a former Business Secretary, he has a LOT to say on that.
Public services – he talks about investment in schools and colleges, mental health, police, defence – but also about the way that they are managed:
Services need to be designed around people’s real needs, held to account by their users, and managed as close as possible to the people who need them.
That’s good solid liberal principle there and it is confined to a few issues of vital importance. Might we hope that under Vince’s leadership, things like policies on coffee cups, which nobody cares about, however worthy they might be, will not be given prominence?
As a basic set of principles, this looks promising. More flesh needs to be added to the bones in time and the Brexit issue is clearly going to dominate everything.
This is the programme of a reformer who really means to Get Stuff Done. It should appeal to those of a liberal and social democrat disposition in whichever party, or none, they find themselves.
In a few short pages, it makes infinitely more sense than everything the Conservative Party has said on Brexit and everything the Labour Party has said on the economy in the last two years.
It doesn’t contradict anything that this party has said in that period, but it sets out well-thought out priorities.
An Independent article earlier this week pointed out that we now had more Cabinet experience on our front bench than Labour. And doesn’t it show?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Peter Davies
cim
FS People
Peter Martin
expats
27 Comments
We should be very careful about calling for “staying in a reformed EU”. Of course the EU will change, and of course – like every organisation – the EU must change. But a reformed EU is not within our gift. We must not make false promises or we will be like the Leave campaigners and their promises. The campaign to Remain must be in the EU as it is (while taking note of the need to keep on reforming).
Fair point. Being in the EU as is is better than anything the Brexiteers have to offer.
I think we gained 3 seats in Scotland, not 2. 8<0)
But I agree today was a good start from Vince. He looked focused, authoritative, credible. A touch of humour as well, which always helps.
My view is that he/we need to have exiting Brexit (great phrase) as our top priority for the next 2 years. It doesn't mean we cant say/do other things, but we should be unapologetic that our top aim is to stop this utter nonsense, that it need not happen. Other people are already coming on board for the deal referendum idea – and more will do so. But we need to make sure everyone understands it was we LibDems who said it first. This could be the key to our political future. I get the sense Vince is up for this – which is great.
Grim news on by election front. Two seats mislaid in Alston (which we only won last year) and in Rutland.
Well done Caron for putting such a positive spin on it. As a pessimist I was not very impressed. You wrote, “The economy – as a former Business Secretary, he has a LOT to say on that.” It is fine to want to invest in infrastructure and housing, supporting green industries and life-long learning. But it just was not ambitious enough. An economy that works for everyone, where everyone who wants to work has a job, where those who would like a job but are unable to work due to their disability or long-term illness are given meaningful support to get them engaged with society in the way they feel will benefit them the most, not imposed on them. That would have been ambitious. Building enough houses so everyone who wants a home of their own can have one. Now that would be ambitious. He talks of supporting automation, does he mean by increasing wages to encourage investment and providing a Citizens Income for those whose jobs go due to automation. He doesn’t say.
@Tony I meant the Scottish Be the best again campaign which won us 2 constituency seats.
Does Vince Cable have anything to say on money creation, storage and distribution?
Ditto debt creation and management?
Dear Liberal Democrats,
We have a problem!
Sir Vince Cable has recently made the following uncorroborated statements which are causing a credibility problem for the Party amongst those people and organisations that seek to dismantle the very real barriers to the progression of underrepresented groups.
“Gender isn’t an issue any more, rightly so. Thanks to Obama, race isn’t really an issue any more – at least, we hope not. And age shouldn’t be, either. It should be who you are and what you have to say.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/vince-cable-theresa-may-s-tory-conference-speech-could-have-been-taken-out-mein
“There is much to be patriotic about in Britain today”
It is a more tolerant and inclusive place than when my late wife and I started an inter-racial family a generation ago. It has great resources of creativity and business talent, of learning and research. There is a real generosity of spirit and sense of community”
https://www.libdems.org.uk/vince-manifesto?recruiter_id=233742
I again put out my hand of friendship to Sir Vince to engage in meaningful discussions to undo the damage that has, and potentially will result from the Party becoming ‘Colour Blind’ whilst the evidence from the Police and Government indicate that Racism and others forms of bigotry have risen.
Yours sincerely and fraternally
Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrat (EMLD) – Chair
Ian, grim news indeed. Since the coalition we have become just a bit player/an extra on the stage constantly believing in the virtual impossible. In my view this will continue until we have a root and branch change at HQ.
On the economy Steve, think you will find that Vince is heavily influenced by Hyman Minsky. He more that most knows the importance of monetary policy. I recall him being very worried in the middle years of the Coalition when the exchange rate began recovering which signaled a tightening of monetary policy. He was right to be concerned as it led to a slowing of recovery in the last two years of our time in Government.
It was of course a scandal that he was not included in the Lib Dem ‘economic team’ operating through the misnamed Quad which was a Sextet by that time: Clegg, Alexander and Laws.
“May’s deal with the DUP has trashed David Cameron’s 10-year effort to “detoxify” the Tory brand. He said Jeremy Corbyn offers implausible “Venezuelan socialism” and will disappoint his younger voters when they realise he is supporting Brexit.”
Vince Cable was on BBC1 Breakfast tv today.
@ theakes and Ian Patterson The Alston result had particular local circumstances combined with a fired up local Labour Party who worked their socks off (and all credit to them for that).
Alston is an isolated high Pennine small town with a strong sense of community. The Liberal Democrat Candidate who won last year resigned within months and this didn’t go down well. Selection issues yet again for those who advocate paper candidates who win without expecting to.
There were also local issues to do with retaining Alston cottage hospital which the local Labour Party campaigned fiercely on. They had an excellent candidate who won a County Council seat there last May by hard graft and personal canvassing and repeated it again this time.
How do I know ? I used to lead the Lib Dem group on Eden Council – and I taught last May’s winning Labour candidate when she was at school – and an excellent Councillor she now is.
The lesson – there is no alternative to hard work… and beware of paper candidates. The electorate aren’t daft and they don’t like being taken for granted. Biggest lesson ? If the Lib Dems behave in an amateur way they will get clobbered by other parties who do work and make an effort.
@Theakes and David Raw, since the counties our run of local by election wins has stopped, so we can’t now show the spectular x gains in future campaign literature!
@ Ian Patterson Why should you show it anyway ?
The electorate want to see campaigning on real issues rather than chest beating about how wonderful you are.
Journalists whose personal preferences are for authoritarian parties will assume that what a Liberal Democrat leader says is party policy. Vince will not make that mistake, but others should note that conference decides policy and the leader needs others to follow. It looks good so far, sensible and ambitious.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy said “We do not do these things because they are easy, we do them because they are hard” but we are not asking for the moon.
@David Raw such illustrations did feature in campaign materials, that I saw.
Ruwan
Your comments as usual are motivated by a desire for progress needed and constant attention to the detail in situations relevant.
Above though in the quotes , it would , I think be wrong to read into what Vince says, the wrong conclusions of some sort of complacency.
If you read or listen to his explanations of his personal trajectory and marital story , he has been through and continues on a journey of discovery . He had a wife that meant with her and since her tragic loss, they share the wonderful result of that union, mixed race children. His horrible but useful experience of racism and disownership , rejection and stigma, has contributed to him being the person he is.
He says in what you refer to, that gender , race , and he hopes as a much older leader, age, are not barriers to positions of real leadership. He means that as a result of important female leaders, Thatcher, Merkel, and May, and , as a result of the presidency of Obama, and candidacy of Sanders.
I doo not think he for a second thinks that such matters are concluded in general.
But, honestly, I do not believe that in most situations in many countries today , those factors are the main reasons for or against candidates or powerful leadership at any level , especially in politics.
Chuka Ummuna is derided most in Labour by the hard left , called , a red tory, because they do not like his not like his being , what they think of as a mixed bag when it comes to his views , not because he is mixed race.
I believe we must be patriotic and happy about modern UK attitudes , but not content and never complacent.
Libdem needs a leader who does not merely aim to become a junior coalition partner but the main party governing alone. The last leader with that kind of mindset was Jo Grimond. Such mindset would have allowed Clegg to won more in 2010 election.
@Lorenzo Cherin
that gender , race , and he hopes as a much older leader, age, are not barriers to positions of real leadership. He means that as a result of important female leaders, Thatcher, Merkel, and May, and , as a result of the presidency of Obama, and candidacy of Sanders….. I do not believe that in most situations in many countries today , those factors are the main reasons for or against candidates or powerful leadership at any level , especially in politics.
Head in hands here. 🙁
Clare
Instead , when trying to understand Sir Vince , as my comments do,why not do better at relating to my attempt , than putting head in hands .
I said , main reason , for or against candidates being liked or supported.
Call me a cock eyed optimist , that’s better than your response.
” Just to start with there’s that daft week in Strasbourg once a month that costs a fortune.”
Anyone who thinks that the most important EU reform is the monthly jaunt to Strasbourg or that abolishing it will change a significant number of minds is not living in the real world in my opinion. I can’t see any of my leave voting friends all educated intelligent and, dare I say it, liberal men and women changing their minds if that is the summit our our party’s ambition. Moreover the very fact that it has proved so difficult to deal with such an obvious anomaly is an indication of the scale of the problem.
In my view unless real reform on sovereignty, freedom of movement and much else will be required before there is any chance of a second referendum overturning the decision to leave. For example if there was an annual audit and any country net inflow of immigrants as a result of freedom of movement received a solidarity payment of 10,000 euros per immigrant (out of the existing budget with no increase of contributions) to help with the immediate cost of hospitals, schools and roads would be a good start.
The other concern is the emphasis on the “centre” ground. What centre ground? The Conservatives have 42%, Labour 40%. That only leaves 18%, less when you allow for Northern Ireland. It’s worth remembering that the Labour party increased their vote by 9.6 percentiles, more than our entire vote share, even the Tories who allegedly had a disasterous election increased their vote share by over 5 percentiles, nearly as much as our entire vote share.
Since I’m having a rant where I live in Bosworth constituency, a target seat in 2015, our share of the vote has halved from 33% and a good second in 2010 to a poor third in 2017. Or look at the West Country which has return Liberal and Liberal Democrat MPs for decades. In many of the seats which we held in 2010 the Tories now have more than 50% of the vote. If we abandon our core vote in leave areas then we are going to become the party of the 0.48%.
@ Andrew Tampion,
I think that the move to Strasbourg once a month certainly did sway some people, including my husband who used to have a regular rant about it, and almost voted leave. It is what it symbolises about the EU. It sends out a simple message about the EU, that people don’t like.
The remain campaign was so poor that my vote to remain , and in the event that of my husband , was dependant upon our long held belief that, on balance, one achieves more through joint effort and collaboration than individual action and competition. We were ‘soft’ remainers’.
Prior to our vote, we gained most of our reasons to remain from our family who outlined the effect of leaving on their professions. Some I got from Lib Dem Voice and the rest from organisations such as Scientists for EU etc . Most of it, in the case of the last two, AFTER the vote.
I think that the Liberal Democrats have still not understood the reasons why so many voted to leave. For some who are not prepared to do so much homework, nothing has changed since the referendum. Freedom of movement was clearly a big issue, but I see nothing on these pages that would convince a voter that the EU would reform on this, or any other aspect that might have led to the leave vote.
Where is the evidence that the EU would reform? And what would a reformed EU look like according to the Liberal Democrats. Until the voter has some understanding of this and evidence that reform is possible, I don’t see that there will be much change in attitude to the EU.
“Anyone who thinks that the most important EU reform is the monthly jaunt to Strasbourg or that abolishing it will change a significant number of minds is not living in the real world in my opinion.”
It does show the limits of what the Lib Dems mean when they talk of a reformed EU. Look at the 2014 EU election manifesto. It had just one proposal for a substantive reform of the EU – the abolition of a committee which was already recommended. EU policy within the Lib Dems has always been in control of a borderline fanatical element that see the solution to problems in the EU as being more EU and whose approach to issues is to think that if only they were properly explained people would all agree how great it was.
On Vince’s manifesto – it is very very lacking on tangible proposals to take the party forward. Basically more “My Liberal Britain”, membership recruitment and social media. Which was roughly what happened under Tim and it didn’t change much.
Liz Barker has written in Liberator about the previous analyses of election campaigns being whitewashes. Certainly true in 2010 (there wasn’t one), 2014 (all about preserving Nick’s leadership and never implemented) and the “it will be all different this time” post 2015. I don’t know what happened with that – Liz Barker will know more than me and she didn’t seem impressed.
Jayne Mansfield I am sure you are right that some leave voters were swayed by the Strasbourg fiasco: however it does not therefore follow that they would be swayed back by such a reform.
The question you pose, why do so many people voted to leave is misconceived. People voted to leave because they wanted to leave the EU; the more apposite question is why they wanted to leave the EU. The partial answer is too much asymetric migration, too little democracy and an unwillingness to pool sovereignty in the way that the EU Project seems to demand.
It is interesting that you refer to Scientists for EU, one of my leave voting friends is holds a Doctorate in Chemistry and has worked as a manufacturing chemist all their life and believes that Unnecessary EU regulation is destroying the British Chemical industry.
Like you I was a soft Remainer, but I cannot in good conscience support the party’s current position or vote remain in any referendum on the deal in the unlikely event of there being one.
“Where is the evidence that the EU would reform?”
Some very valid questions are being asked here, but we should be careful to avoid seeking unreasonable answers.
Michael says “a reformed EU is not within our gift. We must not make false promises … The campaign to Remain must be in the EU as it is”. That’s an unreasonable answer because it offers no concession at all to the Leavers, who did after all win the vote, and who will need some convincing that they should change their minds.
Andrew Tampion goes to the opposite extreme with “Real reform on sovereignty, freedom of movement and much else will be required before there is any chance of a second referendum overturning the decision to leave”. That in my view is an equally unreasonable proposition, simply because it is clearly quite unachievable. Nobody is going to offer David Davis a free hand to rewrite the fundamental principles of the EU treaties just so that Britain can be persuaded to exit from Brexit. So this is an “until the twelfth of never” argument. It means “Just give up, go home, let the country go down the drain, there’s nothing to be done”, and we should not be seduced by it!
“Take back control” was always a grossly misleading black-and-white picture. We don’t want Brussels to dictate everything we do, and we don’t want London to dictate everything, either. We want a voice. We must demand reforms, we must make clear that we need to see progress, and we must be realistic about what we can achieve. If we had spoken like that before the referendum, we’d probably not have lost it!
“Nobody is going to offer David Davis a free hand to rewrite the fundamental principles of the EU treaties”
Yes as regards the Brexit negotations. But when it comes to a reformed EU what are those fundamental principles? The treaties originally had four aspects to this on freedom of movement:
1 Ro accept offers of employment actually made;
2 and move within the EU to take those up
3 To remain in a state for the purpose of employment and
4) To remain after having been employed – this was subject to conditions which the commission would set.
So important to note that there is nothing set out (as a point of principle about free movement to look for work, or an unlimited right to remain when not in work. When first drafted those were limited by the lack of ease of movement and have been extended by the Commission and case law. Free movement could be tightened up considerably whilst remaining consistent with the core principles of the treaty.
I don’t think that it is unreasonable to point out that asking people to vote again on a substantially unreformed EU is likely to get the same answer. Although it might be unrealistic to expect the EU to reform. On the other hand Donald Tusk has said he hopes that the UK changes it’s mind and as a politician he presumably understands the need for compromise and concessions.