We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down.
We have reason to be cautiously optimistic about the forthcoming elections.
It will probably take years to clarify why we had such a disastrous result in the 2015 general election, but it seems plausible to say that it was because people did not know what we stood for any more. Despite a laundry list of governmental achievements, we had, to an extent, sold our soul to the devil – the tuition fees disaster being emblematic of the whole thing. Then we went into the election saying effectively that we’d put a tape measure between the two other main parties and stand exactly equidistant between them. OK, that’s not what we said, but that was the perception that came over.
Two acts of great leadership by Tim Farron are helping to turn around our fortunes. Firstly, his clear and courageous stand against Brexit and, then, against hard Brexit. Secondly, his declaration last night that we will not enter into any coalitions or deals after this election.
At last we have a very distinctive, independent position and we are making a very credible bid to the be the main opposition to the Conservatives.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Jago Hazzard on the complicated history of Turnham Green
Suitably inspired, I return to Suffolk
Investment, investment, investment.
Definitely a Lib Dem conference!
Ed Davey tries to name all the Lib Dem MPs while on a roller coaster
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Simon R
Nigel Jones
Roland
Joe Bourke
Matt (Bristol)
38 Comments
We need not apologise for the coalition.
Yes, as Paul Walter says, it was disastrous for our Party but not for the country. Compare the stability and (limited) progress of the coalition years with the chaos and uncertainty since 2015.
We should clearly and loudly continue to remind the electorate that it is the Conservatives who have got us into this whole Brexit mess.
Yes Michael
The Tories inherited a stable government in 2015, they ditched us and took the country into a chaotic mess, assisted by the weakest Labour leader in living memory.
The only party that stands a chance of sorting this mess out are the Lib Dems. Events in France back this message up.
@ Michael Cole. “We need not apologise for the coalition.” As my four year old grandson often says on many topics , ‘I don’t think so’.
I’m afraid it’s also not the view the electorate (and many long standing members) took. Take Sheffield Centra,l for example, where we dropped from a close second to fourth place and losing over three quarters of our vote (nearly 17,000 votes down to 4,000 votes).
Less said about the Coalition the better. ‘Nuff said…… time to move on…….
Yes David. Events do seem to be moving our way.
Despite our small number of MPs, it is the Liberal Democrats that Theresa really fears.
Accordingly, we can expect more vitriol and untruths from the Tories and their media friends.
@David Raw: It is illuminating to know that you form your political opinions on the basis of advice from your four year old grandson.
Now is not the time for doom and gloom.
We should be realistic about the Coalition, not pretend that it did not happen as you seem to be suggesting.
Michael Cole, Perhaps it’s not quite fair to say that “it is the Conservatives who have got us into this whole Brexit mess”, when the Lib Dems for several years had a policy of calling for an in/out referendum on EU membership.
@ Michael Cole “It is illuminating to know that you form your political opinions on the basis of advice from your four year old grandson”.
Well, if that’s the best you can do…… it’s even more illuminating that you should think I do. It goes some way to explaining your rosy spec view of the Coalition.
The 2015 election disaster is history, yes, we all can learn from it, the good, the bad and the ugly points should be the catalyst for moving forward like we indeed are. The French election shows when given a clear message of hope the people grasp hope over fear. The tide of intolerance and indifference can be checked, that is our message and one that unites us all.
We have moved off the Yellow Brick Road (a heart for the Tories, a brain for Labour) and have a Unique Selling Point – We’re against Brexit (failing that, against Hard Brexit) – but the risk is of boring the electorate with a Spam campaign (Brexit, Brexit, nothing but Brexit). There are a whole wealth of other issues to talk about – the underfunding of the NHS, welfare cuts, inadequate social care, environmental damage – the list goes on. Membership of the EU was never at the top of people’s concerns until a handful of obsessives insisted on a referendum and the government obliged.
Catherine, I take your point.
But I understand that the Lib Dems were in favour of a referendum only if there were to be a major change in the EU constitution. Maybe that was not the case, so please do correct me if I am mistaken.
Surely you agree that the blame must lie overwhemingly with the conservatives.
@ David Raw,
Calm down.
I do not have a “rosy spec view of the Coalition.” I repeat: “We should be realistic about the Coalition, not pretend that it did not happen as you seem to be suggesting.”
It would be very naive to hope that our opponents will not continue to raise the matter and try to use it against us.
The weakness of the ‘sackcloth and ashes’ approach to the coalition is that if we suggest that we screwed up that badly, then no-one in their right mind would give us a chance of being anywhere near power in future. Be realistic about our mistakes, but be positive about what was achieved, and our potential for the future.
John Bicknell: Agreed.
I am one of those people who said I would never again vote Lib Dem after the coalition – not because it was a coalition but because of the way the Lib Dems handled themselves in coalition.
And yet here I am. The only reason I am giving the Lib Dems consideration again is the party’s courageous stand against Brexit. If this is what redemption looks like, well done. But please be advised that harping on about the coalition right now is likely to lose you more than you will gain.
The good thing about this election for the Lib Dems is that it gives an early chance to roll back some of the losses. The bad thing is that 2 years is not enough to have completely rebuilt trust. People like me who had voted Lib Dem for the previous few elections need to be won back. At present I still waver between Lib Dem or Spoilt ballot.
I would like to see Tim expand on his coalition requirements. There should be no coalition without a complete change to how collective responsibility works. Ministers should be allowed to speak against measures even where they are bound by the coalition agreement to vote for them. Some may feel this would give the appearance of disunity and so it should. Too often Lib Dem Ministers were rolled out to support horrible measures, that would not happen. People need to be clear which party supports which measures and which are being supported to enable the coalition.
Andrew Toye – To make a difference, Libdem must totally reject neo-liberal economics (Hayek and Co), and say goodbye to the Orange Book (another version of Thatcherite privatization). Go back to Keynesianism, true Keynesian economics not populist welfare pumping, and not Corbynomics. Green Investment Bank and public utilities such as railway must be renationalized. NHS and education, as well as infrastructure funding must be increased. Renewable energy had been neglected by Tories since 2015. Libdem must now commit to a social liberal stance of Keynes and Beveridge, no more Orange Book but New Deal. New taxes such as LVT, FTT or inheritance tax could be raised to fund them. Besides, government departmental cutting and devolution of welfare provision to cut deficit cannot be called austerity. No need of cutting foreign aid, Japan was an excellent example in capitalizing ODA to gain export orders.
@ John Bicknell: completely agree.
Steve Way – please don’t vote for Spoilt Ballot, he won’t do anything positive for your constituency. Hold your nose and vote tactically to keep the Tory out.
I think one place where I am happy to mention the coalition is all the Green policies that we forced on the Tories which they have systematically dismantled since (the latest being selling off the Green Investment Bank)..
We can be justifiably proud of what we achieved there which is far more than the Green Party ever will…
BTW I agree with Steve Way and to some extent with Thomas
We also urgently need an actual policy on tuition fees. I was asked what it was canvassing in Gorton and I could not answer…
The quote is a typical one, wit and yet with no real contribution to anything deeper.
If you are going to make the comparison with today it is like the all too frequently used “car crash” to describe something .
Any of us who have had things change in life due to a real car crash would use language accordingly.
This country needs moderation more than it needs anything now.
So does France.
Macron offers that more than anything and anything else is a plus too .Our party is radical when necessary , moderate as needed. Those talking nonsense about the Orange Book have usually never read it.Backed by Charles Kennedy , with a sequel backed by Ming Campbell, , the two books contained articles from those noted rightwingers, I think not, Vince Cable, Chris Hune and Jo Swinson !Even the supposedly controversial article by David Laws on health,inspired by concern for a constituent waiting a year for treatment, advocated a social insurance model funded by taxation, not privatisation ! Extremely silly to decry a whole book because we as a party aligned at times, not with the policies of the centre, radical centre , or moderate, but with the centre right or where the Tories too often pushed!
Extremism is the enemy of progress.We can progress if we recognise that if we are to find we ever can make progress means forging alliances and listening to people, it starts by doing so in our own party .W are a party that is rooted in , classical Liberalism,social Liberalism, and social democracy.
They did not think in terms of cars when those philosophies were began, but in terms of a way , a way for moving ahead.With different people and modes of movement along the road.
And no car crashes !
@ Thomas: I’m not sure that an outright rejection of neo-liberalism as well as anything to do with the Orange book is the right answer, especially when you seem to propose a much more left wing view of what our economic policy should be that dates back to the 1940’s
Lib-dems have always been a broad church and but moving how you propose may alienate many of us, me included. I agree that we need to move on from the neo-liberal consensus but we should learn from the past rather than just reject it.
There is much that liberal thinkers from the past can teach us, whether they be liberals like Hayek or Keynes. Our job is to neither be enslaved by the past or to ignore it completely and be doomed to repeat its mistakes.
@ Paul Dennett. I’m another one, and i agree with you. Like Steve Way, i flirted with the idea of voting for “Spoiled Ballot” (particularly as the Tory candidate is the only one so far to have sent me any literature) but I have just sent off my postal ballot for the LibDem candidate in the County Council election, even ‘though I know nothing about him.
Andrew McCaig – Thats why Libdem should renationalize Green Investment Bank. Once privatized, there is no guarantee that it will be still Green or not, as the Bank now is just a profit-maximizing organization. Besides, it is the party’s direct legacy.
Ashley Cartman – yeah, I strongly support state intervention, first, to prevent another ponzi bubble/Minsky cycle. Next, in the US, public and military research contributed greatly to scientific and technological developments, for example, computer, Internet. Lots of Silicon Valley tech companies utilized technology developed from NASA or US military. Private sector mostly focuses on development rather than fundamental research. Not to mention infrastructures.
We should have made more clear from the start that the Coalition was not our choice, but something that was forced on us by the way the people voted and the way our electoral system distorted the vote. The only alternative would have been a minority Conservative government, that would have called another general election in order to gain a majority (and would have been supported by Labour to do that).
Somehow the impression was always given that if there was a no-majority Parliament, we could choose whatever coalition we liked, and get whatever we wanted from it. No, it doesn’t work like that, it never does if you look at how coalitions work anywhere.
Tuition fees should be held up to put across the message: if you want it provided by government, you have to be willing to pay taxes for it. If you aren’t willing to pay the taxes needed to provide government services, something will have to be cut.
By voting in 306 Conservative MPs, with the main Conservative pledge being to keep taxes down, the people of this country said they weren’t willing to pay the taxes needed to maintain government services, with increasing need for education, health and pension payments. There was no way 57 LibDem MPs could get 306 Conservative MPs to change their opinion, and Labour offered nothing in the way of a real workable alternative.
So, something big HAD to be cut, and university subsidy it was. The best the LibDems could do was to save the university system by instituting a loan system open to everyone for their first degree, and payable only if they earned enough to pay it, so not much different from what extra taxation would have been. If the LibDems had not pushed through that, there would have been bigger cuts elsewhere, and huge cuts made to spending on universities.
If people vote in a Conservative government again, something else big like this WILL have to happen. So, what will it be?
I would far rather have seen universities continue to be funded by taxation, but with that not being possible, as a university lecturer, I have to be VERY grateful to the LibDems for doing something that has kept the university system in rude health compared to the NHS, social care etc, all of which are in serious decay and WILL break down if the Tories are re-elected as a government.
Lorenzo Cherin
This country needs moderation more than it needs anything now.
Ok, but an issue is that what would be regarded as moderate left in the 1970s is now denounced by those in charge of public opinion as “extremism”, and what is now called “moderate” is what would have been denounced as far right economics in those days.
We HAVE seen a big move to the economic right, with the Orange Book being part of it, shifting the LibDems that way as well. I feel the biggest political question that needs to be asked now is why has this shift not brought the feelings of freedom that those who pushed it said it would. Just as in the 1970s, the biggest political question was why soviet style communism had not brought the fairer more equal and prosperous society that those who pushed it claimed it would.
A big proportion of those who voted Leave in the referendum did so because they feel unhappy about our society as it is, that they have less control over their lives than they did in the days before what some call “neoliberalism” became the dominant ideology. That is why pushing Leave as “bringing back control” appealed so much to them, even though the reality is that the feeling of loss of control people have has very little to do with membership of the EU.
The pushing of power away from elected government and into the hands of big business has just not caused a greater feeling of freedom for many that those who term it “economic liberalism” claim it brings. It is up to those like yourself who still push this idea to come up with a coherent explanation as to why not and what you would do to remedy it, not just to denounce those who disagree with you as “extremists”.
Well, let’s talk about “bringing back control”. We can accuse the Tories of being lax in foreign takeover laws. You know, the fact that foreign firms/investors are free to acquire nearly any kind of British interest, including key infrastructures, is quite unique. They are also free to close down British plants after taking over them from British owners. Foreign takeover laws are much tougher in US and France. The US had vetoed multiple Chinese takeover deals during the last several years. For France, there was a Danone case where French authority intervened. In Britain, Tories even acted like cheerleaders over Pfizer takeover bid before it was rejected by Astra shareholders. Well, Libdem can ACCUSE May of promising to tighten takeover laws but doing nothing.
We do not know the ARM Holdings takeover was planned well before Brexit or just an act of taking advantage of cheap pound following Brexit. But I am sure that such a deal would be vetoed in France or the US.
I am not saying that I want to wave away foreign investors, but this kind of “free-for-all” foreign takeover laws must stop. Both Labour and Tories neglected it, I mean, this is a gap for Libdem to exploit, by commiting to raise foreign takeover laws to at least equal to US standards.
Michael Cole, The Lib Dems did originally just call for for an in/out referendum on EU membership, without setting any conditions for the circumstances in which this should be held. Later, this evolved into a policy of calling for a referendum only if there was to be a new treaty that would make a significant change in Britain’s relationship with the EU – something that would almost inevitably happen sooner or later.
Michael Cole 24th Apr ’17 – 11:28am………….We need not apologise for the coalition…….
Yes, as Paul Walter says, it was disastrous for our Party but not for the country. Compare the stability and (limited) progress of the coalition years with the chaos and uncertainty since 2015……..
Progress???????? On everything from child poverty, through NHS performance, foodbanks, zero hour contracts, etc.. the figures have steadily worsened since 2010…It didn’t all happen post 2015…
As for the referendum, I refer you to CjC’s response…
@ expats Careful, expats, he’ll be telling you to calm down and to stand as a paper candidate to defend said achievements.
@Thomas “this is a gap for Libdem to exploit, by commiting to raise foreign takeover laws to at least equal to US standards.”
So are you saying that Lib Dems should have a more protectionist approach and be less economically liberal than Labour and the Conservatives? That has not looked like the direction of travel for the party in recent years.
Matthew Huntbach
I agree with very much of what you write above , Matthew .
I am not on the economic centre right , but in the centre, even, centre left.The Orange book was a book I believe some of which , to be good sense , all of it reasonable , a little dull at worst, and bits did not appeal. None of it was out of sorts with Liberalism, of any era. It just was not what was heard in this party much in the many preceding decades, on some of the issues.It was in many ways an attempt to promote in certain policy strands, a way of achieving the outcomes wanted, like equality of access and outcome , in public services or economic sphere, with the market as the lever , with the government in the driving seat.But it is not the enemy within , that some , bitter , with the coalition , think. The coalition was not led by the Orange book, but the Blue one!
Economic liberalism , and those of us who support any sort of it,should be critics of the capitalism we have now, not opponents or adherents of it. I share your dislike of its shifts of power in its favour, going to bigger and ever bigger corporations. Their disdain for playing by the rules angers me too.
I am a great proponent of Mill. He was and is , in my opinion , to this party of Liberals,now, what Marx was and is to communists. He was a critic of the capitalism of that era, as many of us should be now.Mill, unlike Marx, sought to change it, rather than ruin or overthrow it .
The solution is not to decry the free market . It is to make the market fair. When it is fair, it can be free. For all. Whereas now it is a free for all, with only the top and the powerful, the all, powerful, benefiting fully.
As for extremism, I mean the Le Pen variety , and the , for some, supposed antidote, the nonsense of Melenchon, with his 100% tax !
I do not think anyone in this party is an extremist. I do not think Corbyn even that. Although of course he is well to the left of most of us , he is , on, most days,an incompetent leader with too many extremist links and even “friends “, his word, not mine !
Matthew, a view of mine often given, it is the left , who too often look for conflict and disagreement , especially with moderates like me , who , they would discover ,are actually , surprise , to them, at times really quite radical. I am , as a Liberal Democrat, a Radical Moderate !
@Peter Watson – less “free market”. Other countries are not going to allow foreign entities to be free to buy off key national interests, especially if they are related to national security. Besides, they would have a strategy to develop firms like ARM Holdings into a lesser Microsoft rather than allowing it to be sold off. Britain would never be able to have an indigenous tech giant with its current approach.
If a foreign entity from country like China buy a British high-tech firm, it would get access to all of the firm’s technological secrets. This would be very problematic if that firm is undertaking a defense projects for the government, especially if the buying firm is state-owned. Japanese government is extremely reluctant to allow foreign takeover because they want to retain technological secrets. The US, well, I think you already know their attitude to foreign takeovers when they repeatedly block takeover bids for their key companies, especially those from China.
Besides, during a downturn or an oversupply in market, a foreign firm can simply close down their factory in Britain and move to a lower cost, higher profit potential location, even if that factory was strategically important. Oh wait, an exodus of foreign firms could happen with hard Brexit.
Oh, “economic liberalism” originally means that no things like industrial strategy to say, scale up tech start-ups into giants. And, you know that Keynes was a liberal.
Shunning foreign takeovers is one extreme, and “free for all” is the other. I am in the middle.
@Thomas ‘less “free market”.’
I don’t disagree with you on this issue, but I often feel that Lib Dems project their own views on to the party and it is not clear if their opinions are actually the Lib Dem way. During the coalition years, did Lib Dems vociferously oppose selling off key national interests to foreign entities?
Indeed, once we move away from blocking Brexit, I am no longer clear what is the Lib Dem way and I await with interest the 2017 manifesto for a snapshot of non-Brexit policy positions.
Peter Watson – I also mean that an attack on Tory over foreign takeover laws would be more critical than things like Corbyn’s supersize classroom, since Theresa May had just completely gone U-turn by selling off Green Investment Bank after promising to tighten the laws.
David Raw 25th Apr ’17 – 9:59am…………..@ expats Careful, expats, he’ll be telling you to calm down and to stand as a paper candidate to defend said achievements……….
Sadly, he is not alone in his view of the coalition…Rather than a ‘moderating influence’, that should have enhanced our standing with voters, a more realistic view of our Cameron/Clegg years is aptly covered by Benjamin Franklin’s, “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas”