“Tell me more about what the Liberal Democrats believe”. Whether it’s a possible new member, a potential council candidate or a new office volunteer asking, I’ve always found over the years that one of the trickier questions to answer. Not because of the inherent question, but rather because of the paucity of materials available to conveniently answer it.
There’s always been a simple short 1 or 2 sentence answer to hand (such as the slogan of the day or an extract from the preamble to the party’s constitution) or a really long answer available, such as Conrad Russell’s superb An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Liberalism. The former is often too short and the latter too time consuming really to work as an answer and so I along with many others have often reverted to using the party’s current list of top policies or campaigns as a substitute answer.
That’s sort-of ok, but doesn’t really address what the party’s beliefs are in a way that helps convert someone who likes our pot hole repairs and regular leaflets into someone who understands and supports liberal democracy.
Alex Wilcock has at times produced some great paragraphs of text to use that try to do this (and it’s been great to see the ideas he’s sparked off with his latest one), and to compliment such efforts I’ve also therefore produced a new infographic.
It’s deliberately designed to provide people with a broad welcome into the party, providing some understanding of the debates they’re likely to come across whilst emphasising what people in the party agree on. I hope you find it useful!
(Click on the image to see it at a larger size.)
(If you would like a higher resolution version, for example for printing off as a poster, see the foot of the page here.)
* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Ready Teddy Go! The intrepid bears of Market Harborough
Let them eat cake
Will the right-wing media eat its own enfants terrible?
The search for alien life
News from Dundee Age Concern
Leekliberal
David Symonds
Peter Martin
Joe Bourke
Maureen Treadwell
40 Comments
I think that Liberal Democrats used to believe they were members of the one truly open, democratic, participative party in British politics. Now they believe that whatever they do, the leadership will do whatever it likes.
This looks like a party that doesn’t know what it believes!
Why the emphasis on dispute? Social vs Economic? Spectrum or Not? “LibDems often struggle to find…”?
Is the “history and priorities through the ages” likely to be attractive in the internet age?
The preamble misses out enslavement to ill-health, enslavement to falsehood and illusion, for example.
Are we likely to be confused with a party that focuses mainly on trafficking and modern-day slavery?
An informative, balanced and presentable image. The only thing I really disagree with is The Economic Problem – I don’t think we are the party for mutuals or co-operatives anymore, rather the party who takes an unbiased approach to employer – employee disputes.
To summarise what we believe in I would keep it much simpler and say “equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome” – Labour, UKIP and the Conservatives all fail majorly on this test. I think it is better than the Stronger Economy – Fairer Society slogan.
@Richard Dean
Good to see you’re making positive constructive comments rather than trying to pick an argument…
@Mark Inskip
What a patronising waste of time your comment is!
Perhaps in light of the leaderships decisions on secret courts, and the reported return of the snoopers charter in this year’s queen speech the claim about civil liberties is pushing it a bit! Good infographic though.
@Mark Inskip
Um, this is a forum for discussion and argument isn’t it? Or perhaps we should all agree with the article. It would save a lot of time.
I notice there’s a lot of green on the infographic. Is that because there’s a lot of blue influencing the yellow these days?
As somebody who is beginning to think about how I’m going to vote in 2015 I was excited to see this post on my first visit to this blog . I read it but I’m feeling underwhelmed. Is there anything here that Tony Blair or Kenneth Clark wouldn’t agree with?
Whilst it may well have been fun putting this instructive presentation together, it comes across too much as a manifesto and lacks the sharp focus that is required into anyone asking about Liberal Democrat beliefs.
People who ask this question usually demand a short succinct reply and like Richard Dean are often keen to simplistically deride any hesitant qualification.
In my opinion the best answer is to say that we believe in Liberal Values and Representative Democracy and then expand how this applies to particular issues. Of course a lot is packed into the term Liberal Values much of which Mark has carefully presented and he is right to note its enduring influence from the Enlightenment (he could go back to Hume) to the present day, but quite a few may well be cold to this perspective.
Rather than what we ‘believe’ in the form presented, I believe an extended introduction to preamble is a must as part of any such document – these are the core values to which every Liberal Democrat subscribes – everything else flows from this analysis. Within this shared philosophy, our beliefs (opinions) as to how best to build a Liberal and Democratic society will vary by individual and across time as the problems facing us ebb and flow. In short the core philosophic values of the party remain fairly constant while our priorities and therefore policies change in response to events and experience.
Sorry Mark, on balance, it appears to place more weight on explaining some of the internal differences rather than on our the shared values that make us a distinctive philosophy and party. It strikes me as a broad introduction to the Liberal Democrats written to the politically semi-literate rather than an inspiring message to help draw in future members and activists.
If I were writing this document I would drop the history and replace it with (in no particular order) our plans for the environment and a sustainable future, building a fairer society, reforming banking, proportional representation etc.
What caused us to enter into coalition with the Tories (our opponents ever since ‘party’ politics emerged in Britain) is of more relevance than the SDP period for example!
There is a spectrum missing from the section entitled ‘Centre Party or Not’. Many Lib Dems believe or believed at one time that the Party was a Radical Reforming Party of the Centre Left. It was so for many years and I am curious to know why this is being ‘air-brushed’ from this document.
I’d like to think that one of the things that stands out as part of the LIb Dems’ unique features is that we are agnostic about public versus private and that if public works, we will embrace that too.
Which makes it all the more preposterous that we are still allowing privatisation to carry on in cases where it has been proven not to work. In particular I am thinking about the decision to put the East Coast mainline out to franchise again when it is working perfectly fine in state hands. Why are we allowing this kind of mindless, ideologically driven, nonsensical policy to go ahead?
I’d like to think it was purely because we had had to concede it to the Tories with gritted teeth in exchange for some very worthwhile Lib Dem objective while arguing very hard against it and explaining what a very stupid idea it was. But somehow, I fear this might not be what really happened and I fear we really do have people who think “state bad, private good”.
@Steve Griffiths … “Many Lib Dems believe or believed at one time that the Party was a Radical Reforming Party of the Centre Left”. Absolutely! And I make no apologies for remaining on that very ground.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion about what “Liberal” and “Democrat” mean!
Ultimately those words have nothing to do with centre, left, right, reforming, or not. Old style liberal is leave it alone unless it’s bad. New style liberal is perhaps more paternalistic, which fits more with social democrat roots. Democrat is about how things are decided.
I apologize if I misunderstood you, Mark Inskip, but the preamble says we should be free from enslavement to conformity. So my first reaction to being congratulated for conforming is that it’s a nasty insult. Even nastier if the thing I’m accused of conforming to is someone else’s idea of how I should behave.
I think I’ll join another party, you young fellas don’t seem to have a clue.
“parliament was supreme”
beautiful words!
I agree that the Left-Right, Liberal – Authoritarian divide is unrealistic. Very few Lib Dem supporters will be on the extreme age of ‘Liberal’, which is probably some version of Social Anarchism, though many more will be interested in this strand of thinking and most supporters of the party would put themselves to the Left of centre in the Left – Right axis.
The trouble is that in the face of an economy bound by huge public and private debt any party in office will be easily characterised as Right wing. What I am unable to fathom is how shifting debt from one ledger sheet to another becomes a driving force for policy: RC mentions the East Coast Mainline franchise; I think the tuition fee system was driven by the same impetus. Privatisation of debt was also very much a Labour favourite speciality: it imposes a right wing slant on policy but for what gain? It may satisfy some economic gurus, but it hs to be paid for all the same.
Mark – that’s really cool.
I was looking at it and thinking “What about Keynes and the yellow book?”.”What about Asquith and the people’s budget?”. “What about Grimond and ‘Think for Yourself’?”.
Those aren’t criticisms of what’s on the poster, quite the opposite. Because looking at it and considering what I’d have put there reminds you of what a rich heritage the party has inherited : thinking about what I would personally have included in such a poster (had I thought to do such a thing) was a refreshing and engaging experience 🙂
I think you capture characteristics that are essential aspects of Liberalism, and you made me think again about what it means to be a Liberal. Good job!
@Richard Dean “There does seem to be a lot of confusion about what “Liberal” and “Democrat” mean!” Such as?
With respect to old and new-style Liberals, with the exception of our companion Jedibeeftrix, I’m not aware of any other ‘old style’ Liberals posting here. I do however think your “leave it alone unless it’s bad” definition is disingenuous to our many of our pre-20th century colleagues.
Much of modern liberal thought – whether it came to us via Liberalism or Social Democracy or, dare I say it, still lurking in elements of Labour and to a lesser extent in Conservative thinking – has its roots in the thoughts and approaches of the Radicals.
“Ultimately those words have nothing to do with centre, left, right, reforming, or not” – As dictionary definitions I must agree but in practice no democracy can be truly free and libertarian without subscribing to those core beliefs and values set out in the preamble.
The pamphlet is a relatively simple introduction to the party today. The words of the preamble are inspired and inspiring!
I know what I believe as a Literal Doomacrat & what most ordinary Lib Dem’s want. A fair society for all where we all pull together for the good of the weakest as well as the strongest in this great multicultural country of ours. No discrimination whatever our gender, sexuality, culture, religion or politics. Freedom to be the best that we can be.
What does Nic Clegg & some others in our government believe????
Staying in power whatever the cost to the weakest and least powerful in our society. Forget about the £700 that went in increased travel & living costs.
I speak as as disabled wheelchair using scrounger with MS and a life long Literal Doomacrat.
Most ordinary folk I speak to think we are a joke, but no one is laughing except Camaroon & co………..
Time to walk out of the coalition as the Tories have not kept their promises to us.
It is the only truly Liberal Democratic thing for us to do…………..
Thank you, Mark, for all your work (and the plug for mine). I think it looks good, with the mix of green throughout the gold implying our environmental credentials, and I don’t envy you the task of trying to put philosophy into graphic form. And thank you, too, for putting up all the emails I sent nagging you while you were designing it! If I had an A3 colour printer, I’d stick one on my wall.
For me, this is a good companion piece to Mark’s earlier Infographics (which he regularly updates) highlighting what we’ve achieved in government – which is more about our policies and priorities now, and contrasting them with other parties.
I agree with Mark that it’s a significant problem that there’s no handy guide what makes us tick, and this is a good stab at doing one. And of course it doesn’t include everything (as Mark knows, I would have put in a lot more words): what it does is suggest some of the broad main points, and if you want to find out more in detail, you can look them up. But Mark’s point is that most people don’t want to spend masses of time reading masses of detail, so why not draw out the main themes easily in one place? When Mark says up front that this is designed to do many different things in brief, and does supply a one-line summary of what we stand for taken right from our Preamble in big letters at the top, it’s a little strange to criticise it either for not enough detail (that is, for not being something different to what it’s meant to be) or for giving a short succinct reply when it’s right there.
Of course there’s plenty of disagreement – we’re Liberals! 😉 – yet it looks to me like painting a fairly broad consensus about our beliefs and more, a mixture of history, philosophy, controversy and current priorities, the story of the Party and its soul, if you like, for information and for inspiration. It’s more than a little patronising to suggest ‘Oh, young people today with their iPhones, they’re only interested in fashion and that and nothing about history’. I think, too, that it’s a little ironic that some comments have said that it’s bad to suggest we disagree on occasion while at the same time disagreeing with everyone else.
For me the part about Social and Economic Liberals is very positive: it’s not as if it’s some secret that there are occasional disagreements, so why not explain them rather than refuse to answer the question? The press are delighted to find fissures, and there are several organised factional groups. This puts them very simply into context, with the main differences between the two most talked-about Liberal varieties, and why both are Liberals. Based on some words of Conrad Russell, it says to me that Liberals can argue about some things between ourselves and yet all still Liberals – and, being Liberals, that we’re more likely to think for ourselves than not!
I’m as happy to write long articles explaining our policies or philosophy as anyone else, and often do, but criticising an Infographic for not being a long article, as Stephen Hesketh apparently does, just puzzles me. Can’t we have both? Mark’s piece includes all the issues Stephen mentions – just not at length. That’s not what it’s for. Similarly, it’s all very well arguing about whether to move us a few degrees along a spectrum to centre-left, centre-right or centre-forward, but it’s a graphic. That needs to be instantly understood at a glance. Is it really saying both Labour and Tories are as far left/right as it’s ideologically possible to go (or us as Liberal, or them as authoritarian)? Of course not. It’s a simple graphic and it gets the point. I’m not sure that changing our blob on the left-right axis to very slightly more towards Labour would communicate anything meaningful at a glance, or reach any consensus in the party.
Hyam, it’s a good question as to whether people in other parties could disagree with this. I think there are three things to remember. First, this is something positive about what Lib Dems believe, so why waste time just slagging off the other two? The party’s new core message is often put in the context that the Tories don’t care about a Fairer Society, and Labour was disastrous at building a Stronger Economy, if you want a key difference. Second, people being against something is only part of what makes them in another party: it’s also the choice of what you’re for, and there’s a lot here that other parties might say they agree with if they asked, but would never say unprompted as a priority. And third, there are plenty of differences anyway, not least freedom from conformity, which is a sharp dividing line with both Labour and the Tories (as is a Fair voting system, which is in fact on there, too). Labour was obviously against a Freedom Bill to undo so many of their rotten laws and ID cards, as well as against taking low earners out of tax when they doubled taxes on them, and in general isn’t worried about the state as a threat to liberty. We are. The Tories differ on things like environmentalism, Europe and inequality being a problem. Which are also all issues the Infographic highlights. So, actually, there are a lot of differences with other parties in there – but they’re put up there as things that we positively stand for, not just to pick fights with others.
And last for this comment of mine, I liked the one from “Paul In Twickenham” 🙂
As Mark’s bravely put his contribution to What Liberal Democrats Believe up to be of use or to be sniped at, and kindly mentioned mine, I thought I’d do the same: feel free to borrow and use it, or to pick holes in it, too.
Mine’s only text version, and I’ve used something like it on Focus leaflets (it fits in a medium-sized box), in publications (where it sets the tone for an article or chapter) and in speeches (where it takes about a minute). As Mark’s said above, I’ve been encouraging other people to join in – several already have, and I’ve collected them in the piece he links to above, and there’ll be a second round-up sometime next month with more from other people.
Mark’s Infographic above is designed to do all sorts of things, but not everything. My short statement of What the Lib Dems Stand For is designed, as I said, to be used in leaflets and speeches, and if you like it, please borrow it for your own. I tried to get across three things in it. First, our Liberal philosophy, based in the Preamble. Second, how that relates to our priorities of what we’ve done in government. And third, summing it up in the party’s new core message.
The Liberal Democrats stand for freedom for every individual – freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity.
To make that freedom real needs both fairness and economic responsibility: an economy that works, that encourages enterprise, and where everyone pays their fair share.
So freedom from poverty requires responsible spending, not debt, built on fairer taxes where lower earners pay less tax and the wealthiest pay more, and building green jobs for the future.
Freedom from ignorance needs better education and training, so people have the opportunity to realise their potential.
And freedom from conformity, supported by freedom from poverty and ignorance, means everyone should have the liberty to live their lives as they choose – without harming others; with equality before the law; with a better say, because no government always knows best.
That’s why Liberal Democrats are working for a greener, stronger economy in a fairer society, enabling every person to get on in life.
For those of you who prefer more detail, I set the whole thing out in headline form and explain what each bit’s about if you click here. That expanded version even gives some differentiation with the other parties, if you like that sort of thing (for example, on class and nationalism). Can you do better? Then please make up your own and send it to me or post it as a comment (here or on my blog) and I’ll soon republish another round-up.
Mark is far from being a fool and if this is the best he can come up with, it may show what a mess the party is in at present.
I was impressed with the heading “Priorities through the ages”, a pity they are all so garbled – not least the mixing up of the positive Liberalism (New Liberalism) of the early 20th century with the Keynesian/Lloyd George economic enlightenment later on – of course they are closely linked but historically sequential. Of course the party has now abandoned the economics of the Yellow Book… And the stuff on community politics is inadequate, to say the least.
“None shall be enslaved by poverty…” – a classic statement from the mid-1930s written by Muir and Dodds that could not have come without the developments in Liberal thought earlier in the century. So we are now part of a govenrment that is reducing the incomes of the poorest 10% of the population by at least 38%…
Our party is not just in a mess, it’s completely lost its way.
Tony Greaves
Richard Dean, but which party will you join? The Conservatives believe in a hierarchical society with your life chances largely decided at birth, UKIP believe this even more and Labour are the nanny state party who believe more of your money should go to the government than to yourself.
You may disagree with the traditional liberals but we are heading in the right direction and trust me if we go back to adopting out of touch radical policies (such as the Euro and nuclear disarmament) then I will be considering my membership too.
As a Liberal I believe in, amongst other things, “liberty, PROPERTY and security for all”, as in the Preamble to the Liberal Party Constitution, and, to that end, greater equality of opportunity in health, education and the inheritance of wealth.
I hope to see a liberal political ideology of democratic capitalism replace in the UK the currently widely and often unconsciously held conservative political ideology of quasi-feudal dynastic capitalism, under which some inherit billions, often tax-free, while others inherit nothing.
How else are we going to reduce the vast inequalities of ownership in our country, which is the UK and not the EU, including ownership of houses by the people who live in them.
Thank goodness for Tony Greaves. Just as I was beginning to think that I had been mistaken and I had clearly forgotten what the last 40 years in the Liberals and Lib Dems had been about, Tony pops up and reminds me that in fact it is only the recent direction taken by the party, that has been so alien to what we believed, strove for and held dear.
Not only is placing the Party in the centre highly questionable, but so is the inference of economic and social liberals being on different wings. Social liberals still easily out number economic liberals – they are still the Party’s mainstream/ centre ground.
“Many Lib Dems believe or believed at one time that the Party was a Radical Reforming Party of the Centre Left”.
Yes indeed, and perhaps we should analyse more carefully why we have historically used the term “centre left”. We have used it, to a large extent, to distinguish ourselves from the doctrinaire Socialist Left, who used to believe that public was inherently superior to private, that trade unions should be granted a commanding influence on economic management, and that we should leave the EU because it is a capitalist institution.
Almost nobody believes those things any more. Many in our party and elsewhere would argue that public is not inherently inferior to private, that trade unions should be listened to, that business should not be granted the commanding influence on economic management, and that the EU has faults which should be addressed. Very different from the old Socialist Left.
Do we really need those words “centre left” any more? Should we just spit it out and say that we, the Lib Dems who have maintained the principles they stood for before Clegg came along, are now part of the modern Left?
“Do we really need those words “centre left” any more? ”
I would go one further and say we need to move on from the political spectrum. Words such as centre and centre left are divisive and I believe create divisions where divisions may not exist. They also cloud people’s minds with ideology, which ultimately can result in real political differences.
I would more be in favour of a statement of aims that we all work towards. I do not believe the preamble achieves this goal. I’ll have to start getting some of my thoughts down in articles.
Sorry Eddie, the reference to the political spectrum is even more necessary now the party has been so badly split by the Orange Bookers. The parliamentary Lib Dems are not social liberal but have reverted to the ‘muscular liberalism’ of the mid 19th century. Centre left vs right quickly explains where the two factions stand.
@Eddie Sammon – please, no, not the mind probe mission statement.
“Our narrative is incubating new paradigms of responsible leadership, leveraging synergies and between public and private sectors that work in partnership, and celebrating the achievements of diverse communities”.
The above meaningless rubbish is with apologies to Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) who many years ago created a mission statement masterpiece during a trip to the senior management of a well-known Silicon Valley company: http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/16/news/mn-54489
Just to clarify my position. The preamble crystalises our philosophy. As members of the Liberal Democrats this is what we sign up to. What the party does by way of policy and actions should be driven by these fundamentals.
I am absolutely not stating it should be ‘either or’ when it comes to recruitment literature but the problem is fairly apparent in that it would take quite some debate to agree what a simple pamphlet should state – this is amply demonstrated above. And then we would need to discuss the words and their meanings!
My preference would be that until a nationally agreed pamphlet is agreed local parties should produce their own document. My problem with Mark’s initial draft is that, for what it appears intended to do, it is too simplistic and tabloid in its presentation.
Those who are thinking about joining should perhaps receive something more literate – What we all believe in (the preamble), our roots/how we got here … up to the present day! What we have achieved in government, where we differ from Conservatives and Labour. I’m sure other have additions but it would make for a longer and more thoughtful/politically literate document.
Finally – @Paul Pettinger “Not only is placing the Party in the centre highly questionable, but so is the inference of economic and social liberals being on different wings. Social liberals still easily out number economic liberals – they are still the Party’s mainstream/ centre ground.” Quite!
Oops.. the missing preposition strikes again…. my proposed mission statement (replete with vacuous corporate neologisms) should have clause 2 that says ” leveraging synergies in and between public and private sectors that work in partnership”.
I always felt that New Labour were like a bunch of management consultants sitting on green leather instead of black leatherette, cast adrift on a sea of “pragmatism” without any ideological moorings. Clegg reminds me of Blair…
I never said anything about a corporate mission statement, I was referring to a statement of aims such as 1. Reducing wealth inequality whilst not making the poor poorer. 2. Rejecting discrimination etc. It was just an idea.
Discussions about the political spectrum are just pathetic, It’s far too subjective. People say Cleggites are right wing, but I’m against the benefits freeze, want to reduce wealth inequality and in favour of a net wealth tax, if you support Clegg you have to put up with a lot of prejudicial abuse and are assumed to be a libertarian trying dismantle the state; it’s pathetic. In fact, I’m even against the privatisation of public services, but I support Clegg because he has no time for dogma and he is addressing the historical criticisms of our party – not with words, but with policies.
The preamble is also intellectually nonsense because by reading it you would assume it was in favour of 75% tax rates, global open door immigration and sharing the same currency as Kosovo. It fails to address the problems of today and the needs of the electorate.
Discuss if you like, just raise your game rather than accusing me of being “centre right” as Yellow Bill did and Paul in Twickenham assuming I want a waffly mission statement.
@Paul in Twickenham – forget Liberal Democracy “leveraging synergies” should not find usage in any British English sentence – written or spoken!
Re New Labour and ideological moorings and certain views relating to (elements of) the LD Parliamentary party … ideological moorings … hmm perhaps the preamble still has a use after all?
@Alex Wilcock re my comments on Mark’s infographic. I think it slightly presumptive to suggest that most people don’t want to spend ‘masses’ of time reading ‘masses’ of detail. I’m sure they don’t but someone thinking about joining a political party will surely have been through the stage of knowing and liking the basics and is actually likely to be looking for something more substantial. Also I frequently write first drafts as part of my job also so hope everyone will appreciate my thoughts are not meant to be (non-constructively) negative. My starting point is that we should be attempting to attract and inspire new Liberal Democrats rather than the vaguely curious. I do appreciate the preamble might be too lengthy but it is the democratically agreed summary of what we stand for.
I am yet to read your linked article but as it happens I agree with much of your ‘Short Statement’ as the basis for further discussion but would like to see additional themes explored such our commitment to the environment (what we steal from or leave to future generations) and importantly on international, regional and localism.
I will follow your link and comment positively as you suggest but you yourself do state you would use more words. We are probably a lot closer than we might originally have thought! People would can’t be bothered to read sensibly-lengthed paragraphs are unlikely to join anyway and would be even less likely to get involved in local campaigns or be true long-term members.
I’m certainly glad I didn’t comment on anything Eddie said!
However “The preamble is also intellectually nonsense because by reading it you would assume it was in favour of 75% tax rates, global open door immigration and sharing the same currency as Kosovo. It fails to address the problems of today and the needs of the electorate.” is something of a classic. No, I don’t think anyone will accuse you of being centre-right again! 🙂
lol, thanks Stephen. Sorry for the fit of rage, I have calmed down now 🙂
Glad to be of assistance. I’ve just spent the afternoon taking my mother to garden centres. Posting here would be of no therapeutic value; glass of wine called for! 🙂
Eddie
So you support Clegg for his ability to cut through the rhetoric and put policies in place – even though you disagree with those policies.
As for accusing you of being something of the right (to terribly misquote Miss Widdicombe) I suggest you are mistaken – unless you happen to be either an Orange Booker or a member of the parlliamentary Lib Dems.