For quite some time now I have been referring to Lib Dem News as “Pravda”. Did it coincide with the departure of Lord Greaves?
However this week it has excelled itself. I can cope with the consistently unfunny cartoons, tired rhetoric, pictures of people holding up placards and/or recanting their membership of other parties. Embarassing predictions of an election cancelled last Saturday only serve to tell us about ludicrously early print dates.
Perhaps the cartoon of Cameron lamenting his poll ratings is meant to be deeply ironic and there is a good article by Duncan Brack about John Stuart Mill’s over-inflated significance.
But am I the only one who finds the paper tribal, patronising, horribly on message in an unliberal way and above all – quite dull?
In current circumstance the party needs to do some serious soul searching and balanced stock taking and reflect the sceptical, mature rationalism that is so much part of Liberalism. I am not sure where Liberal Democrat News fits into that.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Photo gallery
Raven (1977) - by the writers of Children of the Stones
Learning from the Zen masters
West End street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Will Trump's free speech demands endanger British children?
Michael BG
Mary Reid
Simon R
Hywel
37 Comments
I agree. It’s oh so very jolly, poorly laid out and patronising. I get it but frankly I don’t read it any more. The only reason I still get it is to scan the PPC vacancies – which are now on the libdems4parliament website anyway. Having written this, I think I’ve just decided to cancel my subscription.
“…in an unliberal way…”
Is the correct term not ‘illiberal’?
In fairness to LDN it is called LIBERAL DEMOCRAT News and is funded by the party so I would expect it to see party loyalty as part of its brief. There are plenty of other organs willing to take a pop at the party line.
John, unless you are proposing simply to shut it down I think you have to offer some constructive suggestions as to what it should do/be instead.
I too get much of the information in LDN from the internet but we risk disenfranchising large parts of the membership if that’s the only place available to them.
Still, its good to spark a debate because there are probably lots of good ideas out there about how to improve it.
Everything in the party would be better if we had double the current membership and more choice of people to get involved in things.
It is not fair if you read a broadsheet to expect LDN to be of the same quality. They pay their staff more and have a better choice to people to employ.
I think LDN is perfectly good for what it is meant to do, and I think if you are an activist in the party then you should definitely subscribe to it.
If you want a more independent voice, then get Liberator (www.liberator.org.uk).
John I think you are referring to the 5 October issue, your copy of which may only have reached you (as mine did me) this last Friday 12th. This is presumably the result of the postal strike.
This explains the content in it about the imminent election, as it was published the day before the election was called off, when we were all gearing up furiously for it.
Obviously this doesn’t relate to your other points.
I like LDN and use it as a way of keeping abreast of the latest policies. It has a specific function and does that reasonably well.
If you want more independent debate then use this website.
I agree with John – despite being involved with the party on a number of levels I’ve decided to let me sub go. The clincher was the editorial decision not to publish letters even mildly critical of anyone.
Geoff makes a good point about Liberator which has published all the stories about what really goes on in the party. You can now subscribe online.
Lib Dem News does exactly what it says on the tin and that’s ok by me.
I’ve always felt that Lib Dem News fairly accurately captures the party interests and approach – and here lies your problem.
We do tend to be a lot more comfortable discussing results of by-elections than results in combatting poverty, and we seem to prefer discussing how many Focus leaflets are being delivered rather than how their messages are aligning people long-term to liberal beliefs.
I think that the other people who have commented are right that Lib Dem News is probably not the right organ to lead an attempt at culture change in the Lib Dems, though it could perhaps do with being slightly less twee and internally focused.
John,
Yes – perhaps they should have more cutting edge articles about licensing which is fast becoming a cultural rather than a quasi-legal issue.
I’m referring to of course your little local issue that you’ve seem to gone on an emotional illiberal rant about.
Dunno. Never read it.
It’s a free market – buy it if you like it – or not if you don’t.
I also didn’t renew my subscription because there wasn’t anything in it that I needed to know that I couldn’t find out from the web.
I also got fed up with the pictures of defecting councillors who had joined us because they didn’t get Chair of the Planning,Licensing, Twinning committee (Sorry I mean that they discovered that their values were ours)
I’ve stopped subscribing. The comparison is best made with th new Grassroots Campaigner from ALDC. That publication is actually well written and interesting. You get a feel from it of what is going on. Not so from LDN.
Having duly been named and shamed for running a competition to get the ‘daftest’ story on the back (Thanks Colin Eldridge) I find the Lib Dem News fine and gives me a lot of good ideas for campaigning in Rochdale. I think John Pugh is referring to Tom McNally’s piece in it about a possible GE. I found it to be quite tongue in cheek if I’m going to honest. I enjoy hearing what our MP’s have got to say. Especially when most of our members complain about them not getting into the media.
I don’t think LDN is going to listen to any lectures from John Pugh – the worst team player in the Lib Dems*
I enjoy Navnit’s columns and Simon Hughes amongst others. Whilst sometimes it can get a little bit heavy on policy – People like Cyril Smith love getting it. It keeps him and thousands of our members abreast of what’s going on it in the party. For those without the internet, it’s an eye into the world of Westminster. For those with the internet, it’s another piece of the jigsaw.
For the record, we launched our daftest story competition to liven the back page up – It certainly worked!
* That’s my opinion by the way – nobody elses!
“It’s a free market”
I’m not sure if Mr Pugh believes in the market.
Laurence Boyce (at no 11) – can I just say thanks for taking the time to share your informed opinion on this issue with us… 🙂
Personally I always find it immensely impressive how professional a piece of work is produced every week, given the shoestring staff and budget (not even the editor is full time, AIUI). Of course it is on message. It is a publication produced by members of party staff based at party HQ. Attacking it for being tribal or on message is like attacking Friends of the Earth for not circulating articles by enviro-sceptics or CND for not including the case for Trident in its newsletters.
That said, in the run up to policy votes at conference it often does run for and against articles.
I actually think there is a place for defectors, news of council by-election victories, campaigning stories and so on. They are feel good stories basically. MPs and super-activists maybe don’t need them, but I remember when I first became active and first read Lib Dem News. It was a very positive thing to see all this evidence of a ‘family’ of campaigners across the country – some of them even being quite successful.
Oh Lord, Jeremy, why did you say that? Now we will have to wade through 600 more postings from Laurence justifying his original comment…
;-))
As somebody who has very occassionally edited the paper and also occassionally done the layout I have seen the paper’s workings from the inside.
The biggest issue I see is a lack of people supplying material. Other are right here. The editor is paid for a three day week and the person doing the layout for 2.5 days. This is a frighteningly short period of time.
Yes it can be a bit establishment, it can be a bit Pravda, but I am not aware of dissidents leaping up and down to write articles for it.
If people have a different take on events, or policy, or party direction they know the answer. Phone or email the editor, line up a copy date, and send in your piece. If you are an MP you probably stand a better chance of getting published than an armchair member.
One thing I have witnessed with letters is that many people responding to an article they disagree with resort to a rant, rather than a coherent answer. Succinct coherent responses stand far more chance of getting published.
On occassions I have edited the paper nobody has looked over my shoulder to check that I am toeing the line, and on weeks I have done the layout I have certainly been involved in picking letters that balance an argument and help to continue to provoke debate. of course it is the way of the world these days that if it is printed on paper and delivered through the Royal Mail there will be a lag in debate, that was acceptable 10 years ago but sticks out like a sore thumb in these days of t’internet.
But the paper “goes to bed” late on Wednesday aftrenoon and usually falls through my letterbox on the Saturday. If you have an article lined up to go in, stick to the number of words promised and have it proof read before submitting it, electronically, you can get your words of wisdom in on Wednesady morning and have the readership hanging on your every word at the weekend. Of course if you fax in a poorly typed article with major flaws in the spelling, punctuation and grammar give the team a week or two to translate it.
I read John Pugh’s original posting and subsequent comments with interest – of course. Thanks are due to those who gave credit to a tiny and part-time team that does what no other political party can do ie. produce a weekly newspaper. Both our main rivals used to do this, but gave up and said that it was not viable to continue production.
Lib Dem News appears each week, without cost to the party and plays a valuable role in internal communications and debate amongst supporters.
Its news stories and photographs obviously depend upon our national and local media output (which funnily enough tends to be pro-Lib Dem). More stories and better photographs would be welcome – but it does not have a budget for “stringers” or hiring photographers outside conference week. Critics should also note that it is also subscribed to by lobby journalists and our opponents. So I have always tended to advise editors that we should not be printing ammunition for our opponents’ leaflets.
Well done Deirdre and team ! All of your long standing efforts on behalf of the party – of which producing Lib Dem News is only a part – are really appreciated.
Duncan – when the material from local parties never gets printed, is it a surprise that people don’t bother?
Duncan, as I don’t always agree with you, I do this with a certain amount of caution, because this time I do!
The other parties probably envy the fact that we as a party have so many ways to communicate with each other; through LD News, effective Internet communication, Grassroots Campaigner, Liberator, etc. After all the Tories only have the Daily Mail.
And, Duncan, of course you are right that a printed paper, however short the deadlines cannot match the speed of the Internet. However, it does have certain advantages. The Internet is all very well, but sometimes it’s like looking for a diamond in a rubbish tip.
So my suggestion would be for someone to be given a half page each week, to give details of interesting LD stories or campaigns on the web, for example:
“This week, bloggville LDs on http://www.bloggsvilleLDS.co,uk have launched an interesting campaign about XXXXX (details and perhaps a photo). See their website for more details or contact Cllr. XXXX on XXXX.”
This would integrate the printed medium with the electronic and be a real help to all campaigners looking for ideas or just more local news. It could also direct people towards blogs and sites like this and flock together.
With so many sites now run by Prater Raines it would not be too onerous a job for someone who can spare two or three hours and layout half a page! And it really would add relevance and a more immediate tone to LD News.
What do people think?
LD News is not quite Pravda – they do publicise critical letters from time to time – and I was very grateful that they carried a short piece advertising the creation of Lib Dem Voice when it was set up last year. ‘Pravda’ would not have done that. I’ve always found Deirdre and her team to be extremely helpful and pleasant.
That said, I had a subscription for a year and I have just let it lapse – it had got to the point where I was only reading ‘People!’ Definitely more imagination needed from the parliamentary contributors…
Chris Rennard is right. LDN may be a bit Pravda like but so what? It means I very rarely write about a story in it on my blog, so they must be getting something right! It is a disgrace that the Conservative and Labour parties have nothing similar to keep their members in touch with what they are doing. I have a subscription and I have no intention of letting it lapse!
Ah ha
More evidence that Iain Dale is
about to defect.
Because he agrees with our values of course (and not because he can’t find a safe seat)
I should add that after years of stealing other peoples, I have just taken out a subscription to Liberator!
I haven’t set eyes on LDN for ages, so have difficulty commenting.
But I do agree that it is a throroughly good thing for the party to publish a weekly source of accurate information in print format.
If that amounts to Pravda, then so be it.
When partiality crept into LDN the results were not encouraging.
Anyone recall the constant sniping against the SDP back in the 1980s?
Or Paul Sample and his infamous exhortation to bring God back into politics? (Laurence Boyce would have loved that one!)
The “Social Democrat”, the SDP equivalent, was indeed called Pravda, and rightly so. Its editor, the truly dreadful Val Taylor, was a 3rd rate journalist, an intensely partisan Owenite and avowed enemy of all things Liberal. Anyone vaguely critical of Owen got frozen out fast.
LDN reaches parts that other parties cannot reach!What other publication could one read on a rainy afternoon in Lak Song- the Manchester Guardian Weekly?
Mr Pugh I would be more than happy to return to Old Blighty and refound The News Chronicle, I think that is what you are truely getting at-a national daily Liberal newspaper!
I suppose with that intro I should comment. I have very clear ideas on what LD News should do and have put them forward at regular intervals (I suppose about 8-yearly!) over the past 35 years but no-one agrees with me and so…and for me it’s too late to bother any more.
I do not blame the staff who do what they are employed to do.
I gave up writing a column on the back page because I was fed up of being in the same slot as a load of boring House Magazine type stuff (which is what is in most of the rest of the paper nowadays). After Conrad died there was nothing else.
The only person who made a really worthwhile job of Liberal News or LD News was the late great Charles Stainsby and it killed him.
Tony Greaves
PS Ask about the circulation and then ask is it worth the candle?
John Pugh is a little unfair to Lib Dem News (LDN). As others have pointed out he is simply negative in his remarks and makes no constructive suggestions.
I agree we need to improve on the cartoons and a crossword would be nice.
More seriously I have complained to the editor in the past that the party covers too much from the south of England and not enough from the north. That probably reflects the balance of stories sent in. In which case have those of us, who do complain sent anything in lately. I have and on balance I think a fair amount has got in. Probably about 10%. So you just have to keep sending stuff in.
I have totally failed to get the paper to take an interest in our campaign for Yorkshire, which gets lots of coverage locally. I also failed to persuade LDN to report the fact that three Labour Councillors defected to us in the Borough Redcar & Cleveland two years ago.
I love the ‘People’ column. I am bored with the Parliamentary reports but accept we have to have them but they could be shorter. I also enjoy reading some of the columnists but efforts should be made to persuade Tony Greaves to return, at least then we would get a view from the north.
In conclusion LDN is unique in that the other two don’t have one. We must be grateful for that. Don’t blame the staff. If you think you can improve it get your pen out and send the stuff in. If it is newsworthy it should get in.
It needs updating. There is enough opinion and willingness within the party to do it so why not start with a nationwide focus on it…
Well said John Pugh! Liberal Democrat News is Pravda-ish in its slavish devotion to the Party beyond all truth and its refusal to admit problems and mistakes. A lot like some of the posts on this blog actually. I’m talking about you, Stephen Tall!
Chris you say that LDN “appears each week, without cost to the party”
Does that take into account the money raised from the obligation local parties are under to pay for PPC adverts in Lib Dem News. That revenue stream is really money that is circulating around the party rather than money coming in.
I have to say I disagree with Mr Greaves as I think the late great Mike Harskin did a great job of editing Lib Dem news as did Paul Sample
I hope Mr Greaves will on reflection agree
That said a lot of its purpose for me is served by web sites with election results however the back page is good
I don’t have my own subscription, but when I get a chance to read someone else’s copies I do love the ‘People’ column. It’s the best thing in LDN.
Interesting to read this, as a past LDN Editor. The reference to the “Bring God back into politics” episode is an interesting one. I was working under the late great Charles Stainsby at the time and we decided that there was a lack of “spice” and “debate” in the paper. We detected that readers were getting bored with the same old rubbish week in, week out (through the letters page). We both agreed that we needed to start a bush fire and get a debate going that would light up the paper and provide some good, free copy. The options for ruining a good dinner party in those days was to discuss sex, religion or politics – so I suggested a commentary on the late Bishop of Durham’s controversial comments in his “Hibbert Lecture”. The result was absolutely brilliant – a perfect firestorm, with motions to Party Council angry Young Liberals getting up and making perfect idiots of themselves, a flood of letters to the paper. The Liberal Christian Forum got a boost and subscriptions to LN went up almost overnight. The humanists were similarly delighted – because it gave them a platform too. Sometimes Editors have to start bushfires. If they can’t then life becomes very boring indeed. That’s one of the reasons Charles invited Tony Greaves to contribute a weekly column – a free bonus which I inherited. Tony’s column’s were ALWAYS on time, crisply written (dictated actually) and controversial. He became something of hate figure among some readers – but was always read. After I left the Editor’s Chair the column was divided up between various big wigs, Hopelessly predictable, sycophantic and boring. The back page column has been a shadow ever since. Bring back Tony Greaves!
Paul Sample
49 (and three quarters)