Listening to David Miliband at the Hay Literary Festival a few days ago, two things that he said struck me as interesting.
The first was that the Labour government had been elected to effect change, but they have not changed enough. The second related to the high number of young people who have left school with no education, employment or training opportunity. Where is the triple lock for that cohort, he asked.
Of course, both of these statements are easy soundbites, needing much more policy detail and commitment before any government can make a difference, but if, as is the case, people are disillusioned with Starmer’s administration, and are casting around for an alternative, then why have the Liberal Democrats not stepped into the breach?
Just over a week ago from the time of writing this, Harrogate MP, Tom Gordon, posed the question on Liberal Democrat Voice of what his, and my party, should stand for.
He pulled out three examples from the King’s Speech, where the Lib Dems could adopt a distinctive position. These were a full ban on conversion therapy, with no exceptions, Leasehold Reform and opposition to digital ID.
My purpose is writing this is not to disagree with Tom’s analysis but to seek to extend it to a fuller list of how the Liberal Democrats can promote a radical and bold programme for change that will make people sit up and listen, a broader canvass if you like.
My list is not comprehensive and there will be items that others will want to add or take away from it, but if we are to use the opportunities that present themselves to grow our party then we need a narrative that will capture people’s imagination.
Above all, we need an engaged leadership who are prepared to embrace an agenda for change in a serious and compelling way, without the stunts and gimmicks that have lost us support in the past.
None of these suggestions are new, it’s just that the party has appeared too timid to fight for them in the past.
Europe is a Liberal Democrat issue and yet we seem too embarrassed to campaign openly for party policy. Opinion polls show that there is a majority who believe that Brexit has been a disaster and that we need to get closer to the EU.
I accept that full membership of the EU is not an option at present, but why aren’t we saying loudly and often that we need to rejoin the EU customs union to reduce red tape, get rid of tariffs on trade with our biggest export market and to provide the protection for key industries such as steel? The boost to GDP will also help to fund everything else we need to do to get this country back on its feet.
Donald Trump’s attitude to Russia, his war in the Middle East and his willingness to cast aside traditional alliances, make it imperative that we move closer to Europe, to protect our borders and to collaborate on defence, new technology and a whole range of other issues. We cannot do that without jettisoning Brexit.
Social Care and health – Is it me or have we gone quiet on the need for a massive investment in social care to relieve the pressure on the health service? This should be at the centre of our campaigning, along with calls for capital investment in the buildings and equipment that house these services.
Climate Change is the other big issue facing us and in particular energy policy. Rising temperatures, predicted to be 40C by 2052, mean that we need to have strategies to preserve food and water supplies. The party should be pushing for all homes to be heavily insulated and linked to solar panels to reduce energy costs and consumption and provide some refuge from hot weather. A huge investment in alternative energy is imperative for security, the environment and affordability and, if we are serious about moving away from the combustion engine, then we need electric car chargers in every street.
Young People – Alan Milburn’s review tells us that there are over one million 16-24-year-olds not in education, employment or training in the UK. This is not an issue that should be left to the Labour Party. We should be calling for better educational opportunities, supporting companies to provide more apprenticeships and better access to vocational training – a triple lock that could create the skilled workers we need to rebuild our infrastructure, to construct the public sector social homes we need to reduce homelessness, and provide the staff needed for the health service.
Higher Education – this leads on to the state of our higher education institutions, many of which are in debt, laying off staff and cutting courses. Why aren’t we calling for changes to the visa regime that has precipitated this crisis and looking at how we can make this sector more sustainable?
Social Media and Child Protection – whatever your views on Jess Phillips, her resignation letter raised some serious issues about protecting children on-line. This strikes me as a cause we should be promoting. Outlawing serialised images of children on-line and restricting access for the under-18s should be a no-brainer.
Housing – a commitment to a massive increase in social housing to reduce homelessness in my view should be the very minimum we can do on this issue. In addition, there is no doubt that leasehold tenure, like rent charges, has had its day, can be exploitative and expensive. We should be campaigning to abolish it. And don’t get me started on shared ownership leases, a supposed form of affordable home, in which the tenant pays rent, a service charge and a mortgage. Government should prevent public sector bodies using this format straight away.
Immigration – in many ways the elephant in the room. However, as Liberal Democrats we have always recognised the many benefits migrants bring to our society and our economy. Net migration has dropped significantly in recent years but there is still work to do in reducing backlogs on asylum claims, looking at whether we can allow asylum seekers to work and re-opening legitimate pathways for asylum to reduce channel crossings. We should be much more vocal on this issue.
Defence – contrary to current government thinking, renewing our commitment to the UN target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid actually helps in making our country more secure. But, yes, we need to increase the amount we spend on conventional defence in the light of increasing international threats, build alliances across Europe, including joint operations and command, and invest in building up our capacity to resist cyber and drone attacks.
Liberty – the party needs to be more vocal in defending the European Convention on Human Rights and continue our resistance to digital ID as both a waste of money and a threat to our freedoms.
Finance – finally, how do we pay for all this? These measures cannot all be carried out at once, but better alignment with Europe can increase GDP, while making the tax system fairer, with a wealth tax, reform of council tax and other measures can bring in new income.
These are just some of my thoughts on how the Liberal Democrats can lay out a distinctive agenda in a five- or six-party system in which our support appears to be stagnating and where we are failing to cut through in many parts of the county.
Others will have different priorities, but what seems clear to me is that a change of approach is needed. We have to be louder and bolder in standing up for liberal principles and values. Maintaining our present course is not an option.
* Peter Black is a Liberal Democrat Councillor in Swansea and was a member of the then Welsh Assembly for the South West Wales region between 1999 and 2016.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST Why have the Lib Dems given up fighting most parliamentary by-elections?
A medieval street at the heart of Swansea's social life
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Nonconformistradical
Jason Connor
expats
23 Comments
“ We should be calling for better educational opportunities…”
My husband works with young people at risk of leaving compulsory education without a ‘positive destination’. His biggest frustration – he tells me often – is that a growing number of young people are simply uninterested in the wide range of educational, training and work experience or employment opportunities that are available.
It is not ‘better educational opportunities’ that is required – we need to address the growing culture that working for a living is completely optional.
If “we” are to be taxed more to spend on defence, then we need to be sure that money is being spent wisely. I don’t believe that money spent on aircraft carriers and US supplied warplanes is the best use of it. Clearly the aircraft carriers were a pork barrel for Gordon Brown’s constituency. Then there’s the Ajax infantry combat vehicle scam. Far too often defence money seems to flow to organisations that are not providing value for money.
Yes, the Tories let all this happen, but the Navy has ended up with end of life frigates, 1 operational destroyer, no operational attack subs, aircraft carriers that are unreliable, Ballistic missile subs on 6 month patrols…
The defence establishment does seem to be thinking about drones, but we need to prepare for the next war, not the previous one.
“Why aren’t we calling for changes to the visa regime that has precipitated this crisis [in Higher Education]”
It’s not just that, important as it is. In addition:
1) The freeze in home UG tuition fees between 2017 and 2026, combined with the decision in 2012 to replace almost all central funding of home UGs with those tuition fees.
2) The increase in employer costs on the Teachers Pension Scheme used by many of the newer universities.
3) The removal of home student UG number caps.
There’s certainly room for clear Liberal policies distinctive from those of all other parties – both on how you’d address the structural problems and what you would do to protect students in the event of a major university suddenly going bankrupt. How much money you’d be willing to invest into a fix is the biggest question, though.
Our support stagnating. Sky Ipsos poll showing Ed is third in the parties approval ‘chart’ of best leader. We need to SHOUT LOUDER.
@ Jenny Barnes “Clearly the aircraft carriers were a pork barrel for Gordon Brown’s constituency”…….. Hold on a minute, Jenny, that’s more than over egging the pudding. The two aircraft carriers might have been finally assembled in Rosyth, but construction took place across the UK.
Glasgow (Govan), Scotland: BAE Systems Surface Ships built major lower hull blocks.
Portsmouth, England: BAE Systems Surface Ships built lower blocks and the forward island.
Appledore, England: Babcock Marine constructed the lowest hull block.
Birkenhead, England: Cammell Laird built major central and ring blocks.
Newcastle (Tyne & Wear), England: A&P Group constructed the mid-sections of the hulls.
Scotstoun, Scotland: BAE Systems Surface Ships also manufactured the aft island.
It also must be said that the Con-Lib Dem Coalition of 2010-15 could have cancelled the project….. but they chose to proceed with it – with a Lib Dem Cabinet Minister co-ordinating and supporting it.
I’d add, that IMHO, history will probably judge Gordon Brown much more kindly than current political ‘commentators’ (amateur and professional) have done.
I’m adding my voice to the LOUDER camp, though we need careful debate before we go shouting as shouts cannot easily be withdrawn or adjusted. And shouting about many things is tricky.
Furthermore we need to say things like, “We agree with the As on the diagnosis but not their proposed responses. The Bs have some good responses but their views ignore 123”.
I’d like us to push the acronym, WIT, Working Intelligently Together. But we pick and choose how and with whom we collaborate on every issue, perhaps differently.
Thank you Peter for starting to highlight the bigger issues. Tom Gordon’s items will not get us anywhere in attracting public attention, at least not in a positive way. They are of course party policy BUT investment in environmentally friendly methods, social care, housing and various issues around inequality are THE issues we should be shouting about. Among the issues around inequality are education and taxation.
On Education I have been saying for the last few years our school curriculum and qualification system needs fundamental change to include more practical ways of learning. On taxation we need more taxes on unearned income and in calling for that we need to tell people we are not a high tax country but too many of wealth are not contributing enough.
The issues that matter most to people are jobs, housing , the health service and the cost of living…plus to many immigration……this is what the Lib dems need to shout about not our own upper middle class obsessions…..also the student university experiencec and debt scandal
Thanks Nigel. Of course on education I am approaching the subject from a Welsh perspective, which is why I have only highlighted UK matters. We have of course got a new curriculum here introduced by a Welsh Lib Dem Education Minister.
@ Peter Chapman “our own upper middle class obsessions”……..
Speak for yourself (from Middle England ?) , Peter. I’m a scholarship boy from Bradford, Dad was a Weaver, and Granddad was a Durham miner who struggled through eight months of hunger in 1926 when leading Liberals sided with the mine owners and claimed the union should be sued “down to the last farthing” (Sir John Simon MP…. millionaire barrister).
Nice idea and agree we need to ask what Lib Dems stand for, but there’s way too much here.
The salient question for nearly every voter is the economy. Jobs, taxes and cost of living. How are you going to make my life better?
The Conservatives say: simple, we’ll grow the economy. Everyone will get richer.
Labour says: we’ll spread it out more evenly and most of you will be better off.
What do the Lib Dems say? We’ve got a wealth of policy on every aspect of the economy. If you have a week we’ll explain it to you, but trust us it’s great. Best plans ever. Just elect us and we’ll show you what we can do.
Great but we need a doorstep message that everyone will remember and care about. Something based on being pro-market, anti-monopoly, pro-people.
We need a dedicated programme for the young not just a triple lock. First action, appoint one of our MPs as our spokesman for the young.
@ Tom Reeve. ‘Great but we need a doorstep message that everyone will remember and care about. Something based on being pro-market, anti-monopoly, pro-people.’
PEOPLE BEFORE PROFIT. Not very original but fairly obvious and easy to remember.
First, congratulations to Peter and the Swansea Lib Dems on their by election win last week in Fairwood.
But, Peter’s prescription is tax and spend. It has failed historically, and will fail again. There’s only so much spend you can get away with in a world where people think they are over taxed and the state simply isn’t working.
@ Tristan Ward I’m sorry, but Tristan, dismissing ‘tax and spend’ is merely a simplistic right wing conservative slogan. It depends what on.
For my part I’m grateful that Nye Bevan followed it because the NHS has twice saved my life,. Failure to ‘tax and spend’ has resulted in the current mess in social care for the elderly. No doubt Tristan would also oppose any attempt to update defence and overseas aid ?
Great. Stuff.
Much of the anxiety about immigration seems to flourish when a migrant is identified, rightly or wrongly, to be responsible for a serious criminal offence.
Would automatic expulsion of immigrants found guilty of such offences be acceptable?
What do we stand for? We mean to empower individuals within society and their communities, to fight poverty and inequality, and uphold a state-supported liberalism.
What will we do? Help on cost of living, jobs for young people (well proposed, Alan Milburn), energy from non-fossil sources, health services and social care. Also, I am going to propose, a drive like that after World War 2 from government urgently to invest in the vast increase in social housing and affordable house building that the country needs.
Spot on Peter. I would also add: attention to the prison service. As a party I wish we were more systems-thinking based. The prison crisis is related to children being brought up in care, which is related to so much else including our education system. Why are we still stuck with a system devised by Gove and Cummings – based on testing and league tables? Children are being prepared for tests rather than teachers being free (and appropriately trained and qualified) to use their own judgement as to what the children in their context need. Education is based on a competitive rather than a cooperative model. As a teacher of over 50 years experience I am so frustrated for teachers and pupils in schools. They need to be prepared with basic skills for life before we get hung up on maths and (very unrealistic) English tests. I could go on and on … The party needs to tap into the expertise and experience of its members. It’s still too much a top-down model. When we’ve got our compelling messages clear we can then get the membership to spread them.
This is a good list, but it’s a very long list! There is a crying need for distinctive policies on all these things and for some at least of those policies to be daring, which I fear would scare the current leadership. There is a need to treat poverty as an evil and not as a regrettable fact of life for which safety nets should be provided. But there is also a need to answer Tom Gordon’s question, which his three policy areas barely do. What makes us distinctive? What are we about? What would be the underlying theme behind our list of policy commitments?
@ David Raw
I’m afrdi your response is certainly a bit of a knee jerk reation.
Which bit of
“there’s only so much spend you can get away with in a world where people think they are over taxed and the state simply isn’t working”
do you think is wrong and/or the party can overcome by promising more spending funded by tax? And how is it to be done?
@ Tristan Ward Sorry, Tristan, I’m afraid you don’t seem to have taken on board the liberal economics of Keynes, Roosevelt’s New Deal, or even learned the lessons of the Clegg years…………….. and Gladstone shuffled off this mortal coil 128 years ago.
> Clearly the aircraft carriers were a pork barrel for Gordon Brown’s constituency.
Doubtful. More to do with the US “pivot to Asia”. The UK does not have a declared Pivot to Asia / East of Suez policy. But the UK carriers are tied up with the F-35B and cooperation with USMC squadrons. Also the US defence supply base. Including Kellogg Brown & Root, Halliburton and their links to the Bush family. KBR appeared out of nowhere to join the aircraft carrier programme alliance. For some reason. During the Global War on Terror. The UK was very much the “junior partner” in all this.
To me empowerment of ordinary people embodies what we stand for and how we differ from the other Parties. This in turn reflects our respect for people knowing what is best for themselves, the importance of life long learning and an excellent educational system. It also includes a fairer electoral system and more indirect democracy such as Citizens’ Assembliess, petitions and referenda.