After such a successful national election campaign, led by a coherent leadership team, I hesitate to disagree with Mark Pack’s August Report (LibDem Voice August 20th) on ‘the New Political Landscape’. But I don’t agree that in the first year after a decisive election our party’s campaign themes should be driven primarily by what the polls tell us about public priorities and what voters want to hear. Political parties should aim to set the agenda when they can, not simply respond to existing public anxieties.
A political party has to appeal to three different audiences: to the wider public, directly on the doorstep, through leaflets and postings, and indirectly through the access we hope to gain via the respect of professionals in the media; to the small proportion of UK citizens actively interested in political issues, who we hope will be persuaded to join us and contribute actively (and financially) to our campaigns; and to the even smaller group of commentators on politics in written, broadcast and social media, who summarise and interpret partisan politics to the wider public.
Populist parties feedback to the public messages that they want to hear: that they are being betrayed by the elite, that they can have better public services and lower taxes, that there are simple answers to intractable questions. Democratic and liberal parties have to attempt to shape and change the agenda, to explain to the public that difficult choices cannot be avoided, nor changes in economy and society indefinitely postponed.
The best time to set out our stall to the politically-interested minority is at the beginning of Britain’s five-year electoral cycle. There’s plenty of time for unfamiliar messages to filter through into popular familiarity before the next national campaign. There are young voters emerging from their first engagement with politics, and wondering which party (if any) might inspire them. And there’s often a new government from which we need to differentiate ourselves, not by populist opposition but by careful promotion of alternative approaches.
Jo Grimond brought in a new generation of young activists by challenging the conventional wisdom that Britain was still a world power and by supporting cooperatives and mutuals in industry, while defending the wisdom of local democracy against the domination of Westminster and Whitehall. Jeremy Thorpe provoked the wrath of the right-wing press by denouncing Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence. David Steel made his parliamentary reputation by introducing a private member’s bill on the highly-contentious issue of abortion reform. Paddy Ashdown intensely irritated the Prime Minister and the press by banging on about Bosnia, and differentiated our commitment to education from Blair’s empty rhetoric by committing us to raise income tax to provide additional funding. We should not be afraid, in our turn, of upsetting the conventional wisdom, setting out our own priorities to reshape the political debate.
There’s no shortage of issues on which our impressive and enlarged parliamentary party can expand. We’ve made water pollution our own issue successfully so far. But we need now to spell out what we consider the long-term future of public monopolies to be. Has privatization failed? Do we support a move towards non-profit public corporations, or some other form of regulated and accountable utility? We talk the language of sustainability and climate crisis, but how far are we willing to tell the public about the urgency, the cost and the painful changes of the transition in our way of life that is required?
Conventional wisdom agrees that it’s not possible to raise taxes above 40% of GDP, even though the rising number of old people, the scale of economic transition required by climate change and technological innovation indicates that public investment and public services cannot be effectively maintained below that ceiling: dare we explain that to the rising number of elderly voters, themselves disproportionately costly to the public purse? The Labour government appears to think that improving the delivery of public services will be sufficient to resolve the embittered alienation of so many voters from British politics. Do we dare as liberals to argue that democracy requires a much more active engagement with our citizens, at national and at local levels?
We are a Social Liberal Party. Liberal values are what motivate so many of us to go out in the rain to deliver leaflets, to make yet another donation, or spend long evenings addressing envelopes. Liberal values have to be fought for against popular prejudices and wealthy self-interests: on civil liberties, prison reform, the left behind, disabled and other minorities. Liberalism is under attack in the USA, in Germany and France, and in Britain from the well-funded populist right. Now is the time to inspire a new generation of supporters and activists to fight for those values. Closer to the next election campaign we can then narrow down to the immediate issues which bring less politically-motivated voters to the polls.
* William Wallace is Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues in the Lords.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Joe Bourke
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
Jennie
25 Comments
As long as we never go back into the comfort zone of campaigning on issues that our of interest to we activists – PR and Single Market – and almost no interest whatsoever to the General Public.
The last GE campaign was underpinned by a positive liberal vison of liberty, that is partly why it was so successful. The voters could actually see we were in touch and offeieng viable solutions. We need to build on that.
William writes “We’ve made water pollution our own issue successfully so far. But we need now to spell out what we consider the long-term future of public monopolies to be. Has privatization failed? Do we support a move towards non-profit public corporations, or some other form of regulated and accountable utility? ”
I think this is a key area that brings together a number of fiscal and environmental issues. “Thames Water has been in the spotlight and faced questions over whether it can survive as it struggles under a £15.2bn debt pile and only has enough cash to fund its operations until the end of May next year.” Thames Water says it needs 59% bill rise to survive
The company received the assets debt free when it was privatised, but the company has accumulated debt while interest rates have been low and has been criticised for payment of special dividends and share buybacks when so much capital investment is required. Now that interest rates have increased it is in trouble.
It seems unlikely that private investment will be forthcoming and more likely that the state will need to step-in to ensure the continuation of clean wate and sewage services.
The Libdem proposal for public benefit companies needs to be fleshed out Lib Dems unveil plan to turn water firms into ‘public benefit companies’
Thank you so much for saying all these crucial things out loud. We cannot simply be content to be the pothole party without pointing out the huge underlying problems that lead to the potholes, and putting forwards the liberal solutions honestly and candidly. Thank you do much for pointing out the unspoken obvious: that we are in the throes of a demographic crisis that we need to tackle head-on without running scared of older voters (many of whom are conscious of it anyway). The body politic cannot promise jam to everyone credibly any longer- it defies what people see around them daily.
Populist messages are resonating because although everyone can see the problems, only populists are articulating plausible-sounding solutions. We need to be bigger and better than that- we need to speak the truth.
Might it be that there is no to little effective difference between th Labour and Conservative parties?
Might we have the prospect of being governed by one transferrable party or one or other of a pair of parties identical except for marketing differences?
Might we be being presented with a choice between being a « weather vane » party or a « signpost party?
Might we aim to be a « signpost party » which informs clearly and objectively and which listens intently?
Might it be somewhere between dumb and deceitful to talk about taxation without direct and clear connections with (vital) infrastructures?
Might we work to become better sources of relevant objective information than the current manipulative main stream media, including the B. B. C?
Might we make this party both clearly different and much better for all our communities by demonstrating the harms, deceits and obvious failures of Austerity/Neoliberalism?
Might we do all our people a favour by opening different, bigger Overton Windows?
Etc?
I agree with your analysis William. Indeed I would go further. By the time of the next election, we need to be able to set out an alternative vision for government which is that of a party seeking to become (at least) the official opposition. That is about more than individual policies, popular/list or not, it is about an alternative view of the role of government. At its most reductionist, the public see the Conservative position as “let’s free individuals to make as much money as possible and in the end it will benefit us all.” Labour’s us “We will manage the economy and share the wealth.” What is the Liberal position which enables us to provide a liberal vision which can get cut through? More sewerage is not enough…
What William Wallace said!
in the early twentieth century New Liberlism emerged based on the premise that individual liberty was meaningless for many without the economic means to enjoy the fruits of that liberty.
A progressive liberal view for the 21st century needs to address the failings of new liberalism without demonising the state, neo-liberal style. In this view, the state becomes a regulator which intervenes only in order to promote the capacity of individuals to control their own lives. This opens up the possibility of using the state to facilitate our involvement in civil society rather than curtail it. Some would call this community politcs.
More equal societies do better because there is a synergy between citizens feeling empowered to control their own lives and things like improved health and higher levels of community participation.
Our economic system broke in 2008. The private debts that had been created in the banking sysyem could not be written off in a debt jubilee without collapsing the economy, so the debt was moved to the public ledger and interest on those debts was reduced to near zero for 15 years.
There is an alternative to repeating this destructive cycle based on rentierism. It is an economic system that captures the benefit of economic rents for public needs Could taxing land more than income fix the UK housing crisis?.
We complain when the prices of everyday goods go up increasing the cost of living while simulataneously viewing house price inflation as a positive for the economy. It is not a positive. Like money illusion, ultimately it is an insidious inter-generational transfer of wealth from generation rent to the wealthiest in society.
“We talk the language of sustainability and climate crisis, but how far are we willing to tell the public about the urgency, the cost and the painful changes…?” “Dare we explain that (tax increase issue) to the rising number of elderly voters…?”
I think William Wallace is hinting, and not too subtly, that sometimes a political party has to duck and dive on the toughest issues. But he also wants to “set the agenda, not follow it”. So, how can the Lib Dems tackle that dilemma?
Right now, Labour is setting the agenda, while the Tories flounder for lack of leadership. It won’t be long before the Tories get some sort of act back together. The Lib Dems have a short window of opportunity to get in ahead of the Tories, before the right-wing press drown them out.
Sewage would make a good start, but only if convincing flesh can now be put on the bones. Will “public benefit companies” fly, in the real world? If not, time to go quiet on sewage, and pick another issue.
I would suggest going for broad principles. Starmer, despite protestations, is largely sticking with austerity. Scrapping planning restrictions won’t miraculously give us wonderful economic growth. If we want to put Britain back on its feet, work needs to be done. Borrow, invest, incentivise, upskill. Biden has done it, the Tories and Labour won’t.
It’s always going to be a mixture of setting and following the agenda for the Lib Dems.
On the question of the WFA (which can also be regarded as a mixture of both): Lucy Powell is on record as saying that “the UK faced an economic crash if the winter fuel payment was not axed” and there was”“no alternative and the decision was needed to avoid an economic catastrophe.”
Is she serious?
There may be arguments for limiting the scope of the WFA by removing it from those who don’t genuinely don’t need it but let’s get the scale of the spending into some perspective. The saving, by scrapping the WFA is about £2bn pa. Of course this sounds a lot but as a percentage of GDP (£2 tn) it is 0.1%
It is rather like someone earning £40k pa after tax or about £60k pa before tax saying he can’t give £60 to help keep his elderly parents warm otherwise he’d face “economic catastrophe”.
The UK will be sending £2.5 bn of military aid to Ukraine this year. Whether or not we should is a matter of opinion, but it would be equally nonsensical to say it can’t be done because it would cause a run on the pound and lead to economic Armageddon!
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-faced-economic-crash-winter-111200865.html
Indeed, William, well said!
Right now there is inertia. What has been done with the massive jump to 72 seats? Lots of invigorating maiden speeches, showing the promise of so many individuals. But barely a word in the media. Indeed, the Greens and Reform UK have had a better press coverage over the last eight weeks. Parliament might have been closed down fore the summer recess, but that shouldn’t stop campaigning.
To go from 72 seats to becoming the official opposition in 2029 (which should be the target) means taking a stance on all the issues affecting us in the next five years – and making public our views on them – LOUDLY! Why is it not happening yet? To overtake either Labour or the Tories in 2029 means targeting many more winnable seats – and that requires far more than the few in which LibDems came second in July! I accept of course that some 60 new MPs have had to find their feet, and to staff their offices. But now each one should be given a portfolio (based on their multiple abilities) on which they can individually lead the campaign. Liberals pride themselves on the skills of individuals, of having local champions in every constituency (ideally, in each ward), and now is the time to deploy their skills and experience
For me the key sentences in William’s article are towards the end:
“Liberalism is under attack in the USA, in Germany and France, and in Britain from the well-funded populist right. Now is the time to inspire a new generation of supporters and activists to fight for those values.”
Yet, as Ian Dunt writes in his splendid book “How to be a Liberal”:
“For many years now, liberals have failed to argue for our values. We have apologies for them, or seemed embarrassed by them, or not even mentioned them at all.” (Page 441)
I’m sure overwhelming majority of our 72 MPs have hearts bursting with liberal values, but did they tell their electorates, or keep quiet for fear of putting them off?
We desperately need activists prepared to crusade for liberalism, but they won’t come forward so long as we simply appear “like the Tories but nicer.”
I think this is a refreshing article and I agree with many of the comments which have been made. The election result is transformational for our party, but it remains to be seen what new leaders will emerge from the 72 and how they will shape the party’s future agenda. In my opinion once the Conference is over we need to move on from the brilliant tactical triumphs of the recent campaign. We now have the resources to make the party the leading defender of the values of liberal democracy, which are under widespread attack at home and abroad.
Great point William about us leading more than just reacting, but also your point about being honest with the public. Our party leader did not say during the election that we are not a high tax country according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Office of Budget Responsibilities BUT we need a fairer tax system that uses effectively the huge wealth that some people and organisations have. It’s been true for centuries that money speaks but I assumed one of the fundamentals of our party was to change that.
Building on what we said in the manifesto we need to go further on a whole range of issues. As well as tax, another major issue is housing costs where currently more state intervention is needed together with less Whitehall government (I use that phrase deliberately) and better local government helping people to work together more. We can surely outdo the populists by showing that we are anti-establishment with constructive policies on how the whole system needs to change.
One fundamental of our approach must be to focus on people; too much of our talk is in silos, individual policies rather than acknowledging the interconnectedness of so much that affects people’s individual lives. The fuel allowance debate is just one example of that.
Just to reinforce my point about the priority at this point in the electoral cycle to attract a new generation into the party. I note that the SNP’s membership figures are still close to ours, even though drawn from a far small er section of the UK. I also note that Reform is setting up constituency associations, and claims to have achieved a membership already comparable with ours. We need to be out there inspiring and encouraging others to join us, particularly in non-target seats where out activities have been thin. Donors who can afford to give us 4- or 5-figure sums also respond to inspiration. I ran into one last weekend who lobbied me very much along the lines I’ve set out above.
“We are a Social Liberal Party” etc
Up to a point Lord Copper! There is a gaping hole in the radical centre of politics, and proper economic liberalism has been shown, time and again, to the most effective way of generating wealth to enable social liberals to help deliver freedom from enslavement by poverty and ignorance; and this is the strength of the alliance of economic and social liberals.
Liberal Democrats should fill that hole and take advantage of the opportunity offered by the absence of the Conservative Party from that ground. I very much doubt all that many swing voters in the 72 Lib Dems seats want bleeding heart tax and spend “liberalism”.
I would like to see us doing more work on using market solution to deliver environmental solutions for example. “Polluter pays” should mean what it says, especially if the payment can be used to clean up the pollution. We should develop an economics of stewardship, so that the current generation aims to pass on natural , social and economic capital of the country in no worse condition than as inherited so that the next generation has the same or better opportunities to benefit from that capital as the current one. (*) That ought to help with winning over the next generation too.
(*) See Deiter Helm’s book “Legacy” here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Legacy-How-Build-Sustainable-Economy/dp/1009449184 for example – highly recommended.
“Liberalism is under attack in the USA, in Germany and France, and in Britain from the well-funded populist right. Now is the time to inspire a new generation of supporters and activists to fight for those values.”
As well as being articulated in the preamble to the constitution, the means to delivering those values need to be discussed. I think they are:
1 rationalism – that is argument/discussion and experiment with a bias towards free speech.
2 a representative democracy where parliament holds the executive to account
3 Human rights properly supplemented by
4 the rule of law
5 properly regulated but broadly free markets and free trade. Costs of economic activity should be internalised as much as possible. Supplemented by sound money.
All of these have been violated by the Conservative party over recent years, most notably over Brexit; and all these principles are deeply embedded in liberal tradition.
.
@Ben Rich “we need to be able to set out an alternative vision for government which is that of a party seeking to become (at least) the official opposition.”
I agree this must be the aim, and Ed Davey has said as much by saying he wants to “finish the job” of demolishing the blue wall. But I see no opportunity for that on the traditional left of politics: Labour is in power, and the Green Party has the space further to the left sown up.
“Inspiration” said Wallace. “Animal spirits” said Keynes, in what was perhaps his most under-valued contribution to economics.
You can theorise until you are blue in the face about whether economic policies such as deficit financing, or tax-and-spend, or pump-priming, should or should not work. By and large, theory will not give you a definite answer, leaving you perpetually arguing the toss and probably doing nothing very effective. What actually works is what Keynes called “animal spirits”, or to use Wallace’s more twenty-first century language, “inspiration”.
If Government can show infectious enthusiasm, a willingness to take bold steps alongside a reassuring display of competence, and a determination to involve multiple stakeholders all pulling in the same direction, then it can get things done. Obama and Biden know that. Precisely what economic principles a government might claim to be applying may, in fact, be really quite unimportant.
So, stop arguing about which niche within a crowded left-right spectrum the Lib Dems might possibly fit themselves into. Start setting the agenda!
Totally agree with @Tristan Ward.
Our choice is that we can become a party of the radical centre, developing effective and new market-based policies that have the added bonus of attracting exactly the voters we need to take many more seats (disillusioned ex-Tories in Tory-held blue wall seats).
Or we can lurch further to the left by pushing for tax-and-spend policies that sound emotionally appealing but actually have a long history of causing immense economic harm when actually tried. And of course in the process, making it less likely that we’ll pull in the voters we need to take more blue wall seats. It depresses me how many LDV contributors seem to want to push us down that path.
The Build Back Better Plan or Build Back Better agenda was a legislative framework proposed by U.S. president Joe Biden between 2020 and 2021. Generally viewed as ambitious in size and scope, it sought the largest nationwide public investment in social, infrastructural, and environmental programs since the 1930s Great Depression-era policies of the New DeaL.
Standards of living in the UK are geatly impacted by the inabiiity to build sufficient homes, adequate road, rail and energy infrastructure and much higher energy costs than Europrean counterparts.
With 72 MP’s and a greatly increased council presence the opportunity exists to start delivering on what has been promised to constituents – delivering on housing targets (No 1 priority), road and rail upgrades, housing insulation programs, flood protection and environmental clean-up. All the programs that will not be delivered by the private sector.
The current high energy bills have been coming for decades Why high UK energy bills were decades in the making
“For the last decade in this country, every single year we’ve been missing out on installing energy efficient measures and clean heating, which would have reduced our exposure to these prices. And those decisions were made because of pretty short-term politics.”
Thank you, William. We indeed need to be distinctive. Europe anyone? Without advocating far closer relations with it, it is hard to tell where the economic growth necessary to increase funding for the NHS, education, environment and defence is coming from.
Excellent piece, William. The election results from Germany last weekend show that facing down populism cannot happen by cuddling up to populist policies, and the best way of tackling populism (other than though better education, which is a very long-term process) is to offer something inspiring politically.
The problem is: what? The examples William cited – Britain’s post-war global standing, Rhodesia, abortion, Bosnia, 1p on income tax for education etc – are all seen as inspiring policies now, but they were big gambles at the time. Alighting on the next great Liberal idea won’t be easy. I suspect a combination of Europe, environment, and use of land (for which read: housing, but in a broader context) are the best way to offer hope and inspiration to all generations. My worry is that I don’t see it happening under the current leadership, which is why William’s piece is so pertinent.
Winning a landslide on 34% of the vote is an indictment of our system. Starmer promised to sort the immigration issue out – increase returns and stop the boats by disrupting the people smuggling gangs . It’s almost sounds like he’s carrying out populist policies…
His popularity has plummeted of late – albeit from a low bar & , as we’ve seen across the EU – it’s centrist governments that have paved the way for populist politics… A radical agenda for fundamental change is whats Ultimately needed…
William Wallace,
‘We are a Social Liberal Party’
We were until 2006, but after this we became more economic liberal. There is no way a party which states it wants one of its fiscal rules to be, ‘managing the public finances responsibly to get the national debt falling as a share of the economy’ can call itself a Social Liberal Party. This shouldn’t be a fiscal rule. It should happened automatically when the economy is managed well. To reclaim the party for social liberalism this fiscal rule must be the scrapped. First we need to have a large block of social liberals on the Federal Conference Committee who understand this.
Tristan Ward,
‘economic liberalism has been shown, time and again, to the most effective way of generating wealth’
It has been shown to increase economic inequalities with the wealthy getting ever more wealthy while the poor get poorer. Keynesian economics on the other hand not only provided full employment it reduced economic inequalities.
As Liberals we should not support economic liberalism as it does not deliver freedom from enslavement by poverty and ignorance. It just benefits the wealthiest people in society.
Simon R,
‘It depresses me how many LDV contributors seem to want to push us down that path’ (moving to the left by pushing for tax-and-spend policies)
Many of this country’s problems can only be sorted out if the government spends more money. Then it becomes a choice between borrowing, printing or raising the money from taxes.
‘managing the public finances responsibly to get the national debt falling as a share of the economy’ is a direct corollary of ‘achieving growth above the level at which national debt is rising’. Putting it like that, makes it obvious that it is an aspiration rather than a rule. The government clearly does not set the level of growth directly. It is less obvious to some that it doesn’t directly set the level of public debt either.