I was at Inverurie Farmers’ Market when it happened. A stall holder crossed the market to tell me it was official.
Jeremy Corbyn had won.
I’m not sure what that Aberdeenshire farmer thought my reaction was, but I’m sure if he’d known what was actually going on in my head he would have been more than a little surprised.
It was ‘Thank Goodness. Thank Goodness for politics in this country, Thank Goodness for Liberal Democrats and Thank Goodness for all of us.’
Thank Goodness because it felt like the final piece had fallen into place to ensure that this summer we have turned away from the approach which, I believe, has done more to damage British politicians and our image with the public than any other.
For me the elections of Tim Farron and Jeremy Corbyn usher in an end to pragmatic, polling driven, media politics and a return to the only thing that does, or at least should, matter.
Conviction.
For too long the tendancy, particularly in Scotland, has been to define political parties in terms of what they are not: The SNP is not a Westminster, Unionist Party. The others are not the SNP.
No more.
With the Scottish Parliamentary elections now just eight months away those of us putting our heads above the parapet can now feel more confident in going to electorate with what we believe, and who we really are. Positive politics.
The fact that the Labour party is divided over Jeremy Corbyn’s policy positions is an issue for them to deal with.
The fact that the media cannot comprehend a party leader who wears shorts and not designer suits or appears at a mental health charity event in his constituency rather on the Andrew Marr Show is, again, a problem for them.
But both should be a wake-up call to all of us of what politics is really about.
The pointers were already there.
Nigel Farage garners votes for UKIP because he connects with a section of the population who see what they believe, and who they are, reflected in what he says and does.
Alex Salmond is political marmite because of his cast iron, and loudly expressed, commitment to Scottish independence. You either agree or disagree completely.
And just last week a former colleague from the media told me she had tuned away from the Liberal Democrats over the past five years because we had ceased to reflect her values and aspirations.
The party had become, in her words, ‘professionalised’. It looked and sounded like well groomed professional politicians saying what was calculated to win votes rather than what each of them actually believed.
Now she is thinking again. So am I.
Tim Farron’s election has given me confidence to talk about us, how we want to help people, to build houses and to encourage more graduates to become teachers and GPs.
To talk about the federal future and the Scotland that I believe in.
To connect with the public by being myself.
Years ago, too many to admit now, I went out and voted Liberal for the first time because I saw people who believed what I did. Yes it was partly because they weren’t shackled to the socialist dogma of a planned economy or the unfettered capitalism of the Tories.
But it was more because they were prepared to say and do the radical, un-political thing because it was the right thing.
As a young woman I saw David Steel’s Abortion Act as the most courageous and freeing piece of legislation since universal suffrage.
I watched Shirley Williams put her principles and what she believed was best for the public before her own career.
And later I watched the party leader, Charles Kennedy who I’d been inspired by as a student, stand up and say what so many of us felt about Iraq: ‘This war is illegal and I want no part of it.’
All of them acting on conviction, the same conviction that took us into coalition putting country before party.
Its time to have that conviction again. Its what the people wants from us.
* Christine Jardine is MP for Edinburgh West and spokesperson for Women & Equalities, Scotland and the Cabinet Office, which includes political and constitutional reform.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
David Warren
David Allen
Steve Trevethan
John Waller
Vince Thompson
31 Comments
Absolutely, Christine.
Just a couple of points – politicians may say what they think and believe as convictions, and people like that. But, of course, we all need to accept democratic will where it might be against our convictions. I suspect Jeremy Corbyn will show himself OK in that area too, although the disparity between his convictions and the general democratic will may limit his time as Leader!
I find it difficult to accept that it was Lib Dem MPs’ “conviction” that led them to declare in 2010 that “for the sake of the country” they had to go into coalition with the Tories. I am afraid I think that it was the same motivation as allowed Charles Kennedy to be deposed, ie that they were impatient for power and position, instead of standing up for the manifesto positions. A personal opinion, but I am far from sure that Tim Farron is a “conviction politician” in the mould you refer to.
Be interesting to see if there is a Corbyn effect in the two Harringey by elections this wek, a stones throw from his own constituency. I suspect a strong swing to Labour. On Victoria Derbyshire this morning i was reminded by how low we have sunk, two MPs on, one from Rochdate the other Hornsey and Wood Green. Did we not win those in 2005? Ah halcyon days, where did it all go so horribly wrong. Our leader needs to get some national coverage and in Christine’s world the Scots Lib Dems need to revolutionise their approach and policies, where they come across staid and old hat, not my words but a friend who lives in Glasgow North , remember we were within striking distance of winning that in 2005..
@christine
The lib dems are the most anti-somebody else of all the parties.
When I lived in Aberdeen they used to continually leaflet saying its a two horse race the Tories can’t win here. So they got voters who voted for the party because they hated someone else, rather than liberally minded voters who voted for the party because they liked lib dem policies, one coalition with they Tories later and those anti-Tory voters are gone and won’t be back.
During the general election the Scottish lib dems were calling for tactical voting too. The lib dems will lose more Scottish seats in 2016 because of this, nobody knows who the lib dems are and what they are for anymore.
I have resigned from the lib dems and joined CISTA, I believe we will cost the lib dems a list seat in holyrood. To be honest a party like CISTA shouldn’t have to exist, as a supposed liberal party the lib dems should be fighting this battle for us and we should all be voting lib dem. but the lib dems won’t stand up for us, so what other choice do we have?
Whilst I agree with the article I’ve always found the line “putting country before party” absurd. The Lib Dems entered coalition for two reasons: (a) because that’s the hand that was dealt by the electorate and the purpose of the party is to get into power to and have an impact and (b) because Clegg and his gang were so similar to the Tories that he saw no problem working with them.
It was (b) that destroyed your party, but as a political party it your job to get into power and exert some influence. Dressing that up as in the national interest was wrong-headed – it wasn’t 1940 – such grandiloquent language looked at odds with reality, especially since the ‘national emergency’, Greece, wan’t concocted until after the election, and consisted of nothing more than the Tories considering a Labour coalition a threat to the national interest, which was a somewhat odd conclusion given that there was virtually no difference between the positions of the three parties in 2010 – it was what it was – fearmongering aimed at persuading the population to accept deeper cuts and attacks on the public sector and welfare recipients. By accepting the Tory line about a national emergency you painted yourselves as Tories.
Agree with you there, Tim13. Don’t misunderstand me I think Farron will be a fine leader, but he is a pragmatic leader and more likely to try to keep this party pushing forward than he is stand for any particular conviction. Corbyn – love or hate him – has tapped into the frustrations that this article has so perfectly summarised. People are sick and tired of it all and the size of the LibDem defeat should tell anyone all they need to know about that.
Unfortunately, I can only see it getting worse. As readers may have seen yesterday, the idea of Corbyn being anything other than the reanimated corpse of Stalin himself is a view that brings horror to the LibDem masses. Can we still stand as a party for conviction politics when so many of our number still cling to their austerity-loving Orange-book reading Nick Clegg-worshiping Coalition-loving selves? If so many of the right-wing remains where does conviction politics start for us?
Thank you Christine.
Your comments chime with what I believe most of the new members of the party will feel is one of the reasons they joined the Lib Dems.
I don’t know why people are so down on professionalism… if someone is applying for the job of running the country, I think a professional attitude is definitely something that I, as a member of the interviewing panel (AKA the electorate), would be looking for.
Christine, this is well-timed and to the point.
Conviction politics is much-missed by many people who don’t understand what politicians are saying any more.
I hope we can constructively and consistently oppose Corbyn’s policies, but I have seen video of people crying in joy at the news he was Labour leader; if we care about a plural politics with a range of perspectives in it (which is what voting reform should be aiming to bring about) then we need to respect the fact that he carried the aspirations of a group of people who have been actively shut out of the political arena. He doesn’t really carry my aspirations, and the machinery of the Labour party is to blame as much as the wider political system, but still.
However, conviction politics without reasoned thinking, without some say of acknowledging the existence of complex choices, and a concilliatory, bridgebuilding approach to those whose convictions don’t quite match yours, ain’t going to get anyone very far.
Are our convictions a constructive key to open the door to a new world or a weapon to be thrown aggressively at others who disagree?
I do not want to live in a political environment like the Berkshire and Surrey pubs I worked in as a teenager, full of ‘plainspeaking’ ‘common-sense’ ‘straight-talking’ upper-middle-clas half-drunk men whose so-called common-sense was merely a llicense to be unspeakably rude about all comers and not have to listen to anyone else’s perspective.
If I might pick you up on position, Matt, at which point do you see differing convictions becoming ill-intent? Is Austerity a well-meaning mistake, or is it working as intended for those with an ideological war against the welfare state. Would you suggest we are wrong to move to an adversarial position on politics having made that conclusion?
A marked contrast to responses here and to Mary Reid.. Let’s hope all the venom has been exorcised…
Good for you, Christine. I have a hunch we will get Gordon back one day.
Conviction politics is very very, dangerous. Conviction politics brought us Thatcher, Blair, and any number of extremists in other countries and at other times.
Conviction politicians “know they are right”, and don’t bother with actually having to listen to alternative viewpoints and make compromises.
We should have no truck with it – liberalism is the politics of reason.
@Steve “By accepting the Tory line about a national emergency you painted yourselves as Tories.”
You are Dave Spart and I claim my £5 😉
Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher were both conviction politicians, of course!
There’s a balance to be struck. In recent years, there have been too many empty vessels with no guiding principles. But the polar opposite of that – Matt’s bar bores who are constantly on transmit and never on receive – are, if anything, worse.
That certainly applies to Farage, and it certainly applies to McDonnell. Whether it applies to Corbyn, we shall see. On the one hand, he’s spoken about having a debate. On the other, his people are clearly plotting deselections against MPs who debate too much. I strongly suspect his “debate” is simply code for saying he can’t stop Labour MPs from slagging him off so won’t try – but has no intention of reaching an accommodation. And that can’t hold if he aspires to power – he couldn’t govern if elected, and won’t be elected because people know that.
Serious question: what are the lib dems real convictions? Name me three actual policies please, not three abstract concepts that can mean different things to different people. Three policies that are:
1. Bold, not a rehash of what another of the mainstream parties is offering.
2. Solidly agreed upon by all the MPs and the vast majority of the party.
3. Liberal. Those policies must be liberal.
4. Will matter to the electorate (no nonsense like PR or federalism that most people could not care about and often look self serving).
I don’t believe anyone can do this but I’d love to be proven wrong, call it a challenge.
Properly licensing and regulating the sex industry. Nope.
Giving sick people the right to die and help to do it. Nope.
Legalising, regulating and taxing soft drugs to create a new industry. Nope.
Free higher education. Nope.
C’mon, somebody tell me. What are the lib dems for?
David Wallace, the stringent and biased pre-conditions you put on your ‘serious question’ prove it is not a serious question.
OK, but I’ll still have a go. These are all from the 2015 manifesto.
– flexible, longer, shared, transferrable maternity / paternity leave.
– Votes for 16 year olds in all elections
– a directly elected, house of Lords with a proportional system
– maximum limits on political donations by individuals
And I am sick and tired of people saying proportional representation doesn’t matter to the public and then saying they don’t vote because ‘they all look the same’. The biggest cause of the triagulationn that causes all politicians to look the same and speak the same is our FPTP system and the corrupting effect it has on our politics.
Samuel Griffiiths – I am coming back to you, but it might not be till the evening as I want to think it through and be rational and clear.
@Matt (Bristol) “David Wallace, the stringent and biased pre-conditions you put on your ‘serious question’ prove it is not a serious question.”
I think it is a very serious question: visiting this site over the last couple of weeks has left me also wondering what the Lib Dems are for nowadays.
Before TCO pops up and simply states that the others are not “liberal”, whatever that means, I think it would be very helpful if Lib Dems could address David Wallace’s request for some specific current Lib Dem policies (perhaps with a softening of the pre-conditions) that are important, distinctive, agreed, and liberal (again, whatever that means!). Why should I vote for (or even join) the Lib Dems again instead of somebody else?
Samuel Griffiths
As readers may have seen yesterday, the idea of Corbyn being anything other than the reanimated corpse of Stalin himself is a view that brings horror to the LibDem masses.
No, I don’t see that. There seem to be more of the LibDem masses critical of those who have taken that approach, with just a few leadership figures and the usual Orange Book gang being the only people who have gone along with it.
@Matt (Bristol)
Ooops – you offered up some suggestions before I hit “Post Comment”. Thanks for that.
Oh, and I think local-authority-managed rent-to-buy was a perfectly sane response to the housing problems and considerably better than what either of the other 2 parties offered.
And I still have an itch I need to scratch stemming from Stephen Howse’s claim the other day that no ‘right thinking’ Liberal would renationalise the railways … I think I need to go away and think about an article about whether and how public ownership is or isn’t compatible with liberal democracy and why saying ‘yes’ to extending public ownership in certain circumstances isn’t the same as saying Corbyn is right and we should just join him.
Thanks Christine. A problem with this analysis is that there are plenty of conviction centrists. I sometimes move with opinion polls a bit, but in other areas, where I think the centre-ground is in the wrong place, I try to shift it.
Matt, if i may:
Liberalism is, at its most basic core, the value of the individual. If a society, or political structure, does not show this as its eventual aim then it simply cannot be liberal. Of course, this leaves you with two differing perspectives: To the left, individual freedom is something that has to be protected, as there are so many forces wishing to limit or enslave it. To the right, protecting freedoms is as good as limiting them. Neither side has a monopoly; it’s simply how your values fit in with promoting an individualist society. If your values tell you that nationalisation is going to help promote the rights of individuals against the exploitation of corporate greed then you’re probably one of us on the left.
Samuel Griffiths
“nationalisation is going to help promote the rights of individuals against the exploitation of corporate greed”
Ultimately corporates are owned by individuals who are exerting their rights to invest their own money in the company.
Of course David. Which comes back to what I was saying about whether you see individualism as a right that needs protecting in of itself, or whether you see it as a right that can only exist if it is self proclaimed. Thus us the divide between market liberalism and social liberalism.
@Matt (Bristol)”OK, but I’ll still have a go. These are all from the 2015 manifesto.
– flexible, longer, shared, transferrable maternity / paternity leave.
– Votes for 16 year olds in all elections
– a directly elected, house of Lords with a proportional system
– maximum limits on political donations by individuals”
From Labour’s 2015 manifesto:
“double paternity leave from two to four weeks and increase paternity pay by more than £100 a week”
“give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote”
“replacing the House of Lords with an elected Senate of the Nations and Regions”
“taking the big money out of politics by capping individual donations to parties”
Sounds like Lib Dems can find common cause with Labour on all of these issues.
Blair and Thatcher should have been convicted..
Well yeh… But Nick Clegg was full of conviction and we achieved a lot in the last parliament. Corbyn has been leader for 5 minutes and I don’t care whether he wears a tie or not – let’s wait and see what he does.
I just find this reverse snobbery about Corbyn not wearing a tie, and not singing to the Queen a bit.. Boring? So what? Are we endeared that easily?
Yes we are the party of individualism but because of this I believe we have to balance the rights of individuals in order to achieve a fair society. All individuals cannot exercise all of their rights all of the time but must give way if there is a greater need and our politicians should be determining where that balance lies. Nationalised industries are useful when private industries do not cater to the needs of the few but compete with each other to provide goods and services to the majority. An example of this would be the electricity industry in the post war period. Profits from provision to the majority were used to provide those in rural and remote areas with power. A modern example would be provision of new technology which is very patchy.
Liberals will constantly strive to limit the power of the state when it is undermining Individual liberty purely in its own interest and the power of one group which is undermining the rights of another group. For me, the reason why the party is predominately white and male is because they maintain that any measures that restrict their rights are by definition illiberal. In my view we have forgotten the importance of balancing one group’s rights against another’s so we end up with the lack of diversity exhibited by the Islington party mentioned above.
We must also be very wary when we ourselves have power lest we fall into the trap of dictating to others what their needs are. Surely this is why we are or should be a consultative party.
@SueS “For me, the reason why the party is predominately white and male is because they maintain that any measures that restrict their rights are by definition illiberal.”
I think that is an excellent point that bears repeating.
This is a good article, but as an outsider, I’m unaware of Tim Farron’s qualifications for being called a “conviction politician”. The main thing I know about him is that he has abstained on several key LGBT votes. I’d have more respect for him if he’d stuck to his convictions, whatever they were.