In terms of our national campaign, the 2017 election was a failure. Yes, we increased our number of MPs, but this was not because of a coherent and appealing overall message, it was because of 12 very hard fought local campaigns, and good strategic pooling of resources into target seats.
The leadership of the Party assumed that the main dividing line among the electorate would be Remainers vs Leavers, and so led with our vehement opposition to Brexit, but this did not resonate. Corbyn’s luke-warm-at-best Remain credentials did not put people off, and this is probably because the public themselves are a lot more luke warm on the issue than we are.
If I had to describe the mood of the country on Brexit right now I would describe it as “meh – let’s wait and see” rather than “let’s overturn the whole damn thing”. Indeed, a YouGov polling report published a few weeks before the election campaign started found that only 21% of the public favoured going against the result of the referendum. Perhaps this will change as the impact of Brexit on our daily lives becomes clearer, but for now, we have been making the wrong pitch.
But what is the right pitch? The most straightforward way for a third party to gain popular support is by painting the main two as the establishment options; too similar, too set in their ways of thinking, and then appealing to people’s frustrations by pitching themselves as the change from the norm. The difficulty here though is that the main two parties are not the same, and Corbyn is hoovering up all the anti-establishment sentiment in a way that we can’t compete with.
So we need to play to our strengths. Vince Cable is not going to seem like Mr Revolutionary but he can certainly seem like Mr Intelligent, Mr Economist. When he talks about budgets and deficits and borrowing he sounds like he knows what he’s on about, and he has had a long career, full of experience, to demonstrate this.
Going head to head with the Tories as the Party of “economic competence” may therefore be the way forward for us, challenging Theresa May’s hopeless “strong and stable” mantra and presenting Vince and the Lib Dems as the truly sensible, stable hand. Cable’s professorial air is a selling point, when Theresa May is increasingly seeming out of her depth and Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest drawback is the economic impracticality of his ideas.
So that’s my idea for what it’s worth. Pitch Vince Cable as a wise professor, not the kind who goes on stage at Glastonbury or gets his speeches dubbed over Stormzy videos, but the kind who genuinely knows what he is talking about, and is smarter and safer than the other options for Britain.
* Jon is a political consultant for the public affairs agency Field Consulting, based in London. He joined the Lib Dems after Brexit and wants a People’s Vote.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mary Reid
Meg Thomas
Institute of Urban T
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
63 Comments
Political parties thinking in terms of their “pitch” and trying to adopt the most popular one is a major reason why so many people are alienated by politics. Of course you need to be able to present clear and simple messages, even slogans, that summarise your political beliefs and policies, but it is the beliefs and policies that matter. Pretending to be something you are not, or trying to hide what’s really important to you behind popular messages is cynical and wrong, as well as ultimately being doomed to failure. The Tories using Brexit as a pathway to achieve their real aims of unbridled, exploitative capitalism and Labour using Brexit as a means to achieve an isolated socialist regime are not models we should follow, at any costs.
Vince Cable is getting increased airtime and a hearing because he is saying what he believes, on behalf of a party where a vast majority of members share his passion to “Exit from Brexit”. How we communicate that message matters, but trying to tone it down because it is not winning votes right now would be deeply wrong.
When he talks about budgets and deficits and borrowing he sounds like he knows what he’s on about……
Sure he does sound like he knows. And he probably does. But are his statements intended to inform or obfuscate?
When was the last time he made the point that the Government’s deficit, to the penny, had to equal everyone else’s surplus? That’s just self evidently obvious and I’m sure he must know that.
If so, why doesn’t he say it?
We are in wait and see mode now. People can see things are getting worse and some brave Brexiteers are starting to backtrack, Norway anyone? Most are still holding onto nurse for fear of something worse (copy right David Raw I believe) or dancing off with Jezza, but and it is a big BUT you can feel the unease it isn’t going as it should be.
Brexit hasn’t ended yet and we are not moving on this puzzles and irritates the most strident Brexiteers, hence their screams to finish it, no back tracking they scream. The sunlit uplands are no where is sight and they are starting to worry soon nurse will have to gol, they may need a true Brexiteer and turn to someone like the Reece Mogga leprechaun with his pot of Empire new gold (only a true Brexiteer can see that golden pot, to anyone else it looks like an empty pot with a hole in the bottom)
Jezza’s followers are shocked he is a Brexiteer but what are they to do.? Talk footie perhaps like my college Jezza’s now ex friend. Both camps are offering something for nothing with no hope of achieving it. As time goes by people will drift away first of all to talk footie, bake off and the like but then as the hurt increases, well they will be looking for someone to blame and some one to rally behind. The interesting bit will be who gets the blame, the rich, the immigrants the EU or the brave Brexiteers. Only time will tell, but one thing i will predict is nurse isn’t going to come out of this well.
“When was the last time he made the point that the Government’s deficit, to the penny, had to equal everyone else’s surplus? That’s just self evidently obvious and I’m sure he must know that.
If so, why doesn’t he say it?”
Probably because it makes no sense unless you elaborate on who you mean by everyone else
@ Bill,
For a start that would include you and I ! Even Vince himself would have to be included.
Of course making all three of us richer than we currently are wouldn’t always be a good idea. We might spend too much and create too much inflation. On the other hand we might create jobs and much needed economic activity. If Vince were ever back in government it would be his task to get the balance right.
Someone has to be in deficit for others to be in surplus. Someone has to hold the negative numbers so others can hold the positive. Everything has to sum to zero.
That’s something else I’m sure he knows but is reluctant to explain.
The Voters mostly treated June 8th as a giant Byelection with only 2 candidates who mattered, Corbyn & May. All the “Others” got squeezed, even the Mighty SNP. We lost 1/16th of our vote but The Greens lost 3/5ths & UKIP 3/4rs of theirs. We held on & made the best of the hand we were given.
The question now is how quickly we can recover & we just dont know yet.
Peter,
Not if you can create money you don’t. Strange but true, a fair portion of our national debt is money created by the Bank of England and owned by them.
I don’t think we have to pitch Vince as a wise professor because that is exactly what he is. I’m very near to being in a funk about Brexit and fear for my children’s and grandchildren’s future.
I went to listen to Vince in Manchester last weekend and found myself giving a sigh of relief. I voted for Tim and still hope he can play a major role in the party but Vince knows what he’s talking about, especially on the economy, and comes across as a thinker who has prepared for his role as leader and who just might be able to save us from the disaster the two main parties seem intent on dragging us towards.
VC4PM
No offence but – exactly how did you determine “the mood of the country”?
We have to position ourselves as the pro-EU party. First, because it is what we believe in, and second because I’m convinced it will resonate with more and more people as the Brexit crisis unfolds. I agree it didn’t work in the election, but that’s because at that point Brexit was just a concept. The brutal realities of what it will mean were not real enough for people. They are becoming more clear now, and will continue to. We can be the only party that stands for an ‘exit from Brexit’. Vince is a great spokesman for that.
I would be happy with Vince to focus on the economy if he made it clear he rejected neoliberalism and ordoliberalism and stated that he was a Keynesian who believed in managing the economy to achieve full employment and this has to include the government being the employer of last resort and not worrying about the size of the national debt or balancing the budget.
He needs to apologise for the current state of student debt and tuition fees and that he didn’t expect the Conservatives to make his tuition fee scheme uneconomic for students. He then needs to declare he has been converted to the idea of a true graduate tax for life which has higher rates for those earning more and he has a solution to the problem of those who graduate and then work abroad and so at present could avoid a graduate tax.
@ Bill Fowler
A more complicated answer is:
Savings + Taxation + Exports = Investment + Government Spending + Imports
1 + 1 + 3 could equal 1 + 3 + 1
The means there is a balance of trade deficit of 2 equally the budget deficit of 2.
I hope this helps.
@Michael BG
In a rapidly approaching future where many if not most jobs are automated, do you think a return to 1930s notions of full employment is practical?
No good trying to tune ourselves to “will of the people”!
A clear vision and policy is the key to Liberal future. This needs to cover all aspects political government. We could not do better than align with DiEM25
* TURNING IDLE WEALTH INTO GREEN INVESTMENT: Europe’s future hinges on the capacity to harness the wealth that accumulates in Europe and turn it into investments in a real, green, sustainable, innovative economy. What matters is not the boost of one European country’s ‘competitiveness’ in relation to another European country but the rise of productivity in green sectors everywhere
* BASIC GOODS PROVISION: All Europeans should enjoy in their home country the right to basic goods (e.g. nutrition, shelter, transport, energy), to paid work contributing to the maintenance of their communities while receiving a living wage, to decent social housing, to high quality health and education, and to a sustainable environment.
* SHARING THE RETURNS TO CAPITAL & WEALTH: In the increasingly digital economy, capital goods are increasingly produced collectively but their returns continue to be privatised. As Europe becomes more technologically advanced, to avoid stagnation and discontent it must implement policies for sharing amongst all its citizens the dividends from digitisation and automation.
* MACROECONOMIC MANAGEMENT CANNOT BE LEFT TO UNELECTED TECHNOCRATS: Europe’s economies are stagnating because for too long macroeconomic management has been subcontracted to unaccountable ‘technocrats’. It is high time macroeconomic management is democratised fully and placed under the scrutiny of sovereign peoples.
Agree Jon that we mustnt become a single issue party but should continue to hold the government to account through the Brexit negotiating period .At a recent meeting in Birmingham it was clear Vince has no intention of allowing us to become prisoners on a single subject his strength is the economy but he wants to challenge on health ,education,the environment and housing and best of all he clearly wants to be an alternative prime minister .A tall order but as we have seen in Canada and France not impossible if we become the progressive centre force the party has the potential of becoming .
The term ‘full employment’ is incredibly loaded. Most people realise that it isn’t that realistic, so it immediately undermines credibility to state it as a goal, and there will be many who worry what a government might be prepared to do in order to achieve it.
Alistair is right to challenge how we judge the ‘public mood’, because I expect we all have different interpretations, heavily influenced by our own personal echo chambers and cognitive dissonance. I also think it’s important to consider that whatever the public mood was on Brexit during the recent election campaign, we can’t expect it to be the same in the next election. We can reasonably assume that May called the snap election in the knowledge that those views might change as negotiations progress.
We need a position that is consistent with our existing views, but will resonate with how a decent chunk of the population will feel by the next election (whenever that will be), and of course one that we believe is good for the country. We see politicians from other parties putting forward positions that they think gets votes, despite knowing that it’s bad for the country, but we have to remember that a lot of our support comes from people who respect that we are prepared to be more honest.
As an aside, for the next few months at least, regardless of what Vince says, the response in the comments section or on social media will be filled with people saying ‘but you propped up the Tories’ and ‘what about tuition fees’ and so on. In some respects the reaction is more negative from certain groups when we say something they know appeals to their supporters, so I think we just have to put on our waterproofs and prepare to weather that storm for as long as necessary, and use this time in opposition with a slightly louder voice than in 2015 to demonstrate to the more open-minded voters that we are distinct from the Tories, and not just on Brexit.
When unemployment rose to over one million a Conservative government under Ted Heath was embarrassed. When it rose above 3 million a Conservative government under Thatcher merely wished to change the presentation and declined to purchase more computers for the computer centre at Reading which paid out unemployment benefit cheques by post every week, for England, Scotland and Wales. Unemployment is now over 1.5 million and the government is boasting.
…………….If I had to describe the mood of the country on Brexit right now I would describe it as “meh – let’s wait and see” rather than “let’s overturn the whole damn thing”……….
I agree and, I believe that hard/soft ‘Brexit’ will slowly fall apart as 2019 comes and goes and Hammond’s ‘transition period’ becomes longer and longer…
The are enough divisions/opinions within both the major parties for a gradual acceptance of the impossibility of replacing EU trade with any wild promises to become ‘party policy’…
Will the LibDems get any credit? I doubt it…
Tory grandees (especially Johnson) will only remember their ‘reservations’ about leaving; these reservations will morph into support for the EU. Corbyn will only recall his 7/10 support, etc….. and political life will go on…
Fiona, far too many Lib Dems have been saying “I think we just have to put on our waterproofs and prepare to weather that storm for as long as necessary,” (or 1,001 equivalents for six years now and it doesn’t work and it won’t work. Tim tried it with his
sadly so misguided “You know, there are those that would like me to take this opportunity to distance myself from the past five years, to say it was all some dreadful mistake, to say: ‘I disagree with Nick.’ But I don’t. So I won’t.”
Well it was and he should have, because Liberal Democracy is still teetering on the edge of oblivion.
We have to accept that we are now in a position where, if it wasn’t for the fact we were the third choice ‘not the SNP party’ in Scotland, we would still be on 9 MPs, with a new low of vote share and less than 30 possibly winnable seats if a by-election came up.
We, and more importantly the people who rely on us to represent them when the Labour party or the Conservative party choose to gang up on them in their local council. Or even worse when both of them choose to gang up on the British people over Brexit.
There are people coming out of university with an average of over £30,000 of debt and they blame (rightly) the Lib Dems. They will have this debt around their neck until they are over 50 to remind them of our betrayal. Putting it simply, they and their future wives, their parents and grand parents and probably their children and grandchildren will not even begin to forgive us until we regain their trust after what our MPs allowed to happen in coalition. Pretending we can wait is just sitting back and waiting for the end.
I now fear that the Liberal Democrats will go down in history as ‘The party that was too proud to save itself.’
Whoops a missed delete cut a paragraph short. It should have been
“We, and more importantly the people who rely on us to represent them when the Labour party or the Conservative party choose to gang up on them in their local council, Or even worse when both of them choose to gang up on the British people over Brexit, need many more Liberal Democrats in Parliament and council chambers so we can fight for them.”
David, I probably wasn’t clear, but my point about having to weather the storm was that the storm exists, and no matter how brilliant our policies, our PR, or even our apologies, we’re still going to have all of that thrown in our faces. Expecting to have a sudden uplift in support thanks to a brilliant policy is unrealistic, and that also applies to any attempt to artificially distance ourselves from the coalition years.
I’m definitely not suggesting we just sit it out and wait for it to pass, but that there’s no magic short-cut out of choppy waters, and that includes U-turns.
Do you really think that if we announced a policy tomorrow of scrapping all tuition fees there wouldn’t be a lot of sneering and people questioning our sincerity? There’d be a lot more people saying ‘but what about us, we paid?’, so unless we are able to cancel their debts, it’s just going to rub it in. And as Corbyn realised, cancelling debts is very expensive, and someone always has to pay.
That’s not to say that we can’t disagree with things that happened within the coalition, but my point really was that even when we do, expect abuse. The example I had in mind was Jo Swinson praising the judgement that tribunal fees were unlawful. She got a lot of stick from people saying that she was responsible for bringing them in and she had a cheek, and what a hypocrite and so on. She’s done an excellent job of politely explaining her position, and how she challenged things in government, and linking to a piece from two years ago where Vince raised concerns about the drop in applications, and called for the promised review. But do you think there won’t continue to be criticism?
The good news is that we have more MPs now, and should be better represented in the media, so we should be able to get our voice heard a bit more clearly through the wilful misinformation.
@David Evans “They will have this debt around their neck until they are over 50 to remind them of our betrayal.”
They will have a time-limited 9% graduate tax that helps them understand and contribute towards any elevation in their personal circumstances gained by a university education.
TCO – They have a student loan. There is no such thing as a graduate tax. I know, I am one. You, like too many Lib Dems, may still pretend that playing with words is a way to deflect people’s dislike of our party, but words have meaning, and until we (and our leaders) have the courage to face up to their behaviour in coalition, the only way is down.
I realise what I wrote maybe looked quite pessimistic, which wasn’t intended. Merely a caution against a knee-jerk response to criticism, or presuming that we’d have doubled our seats if only we’d done x, y or z differently during the campaign.
And of course thinking things through, such as alluding to cancelling student debt without checking how much it is, or wondering if perhaps it could be better spent.
@ Fiona
“The term ‘full employment’ is incredibly loaded. Most people realise that it isn’t that realistic,”
Most people blame the unemployed for being unemployed and think if they did more they would find employment. I am not aware of any UK politician who states that we have to have over 1 million unemployed. In fact government continues to increase the retirement age enlarging the pool of people requiring work.
@ TCO
We could have a policy to restrict employment reducing the working week to 35 hours (as in France) and apply the European working time directive to everyone with very few opt-outs and reduce it to a 45 hours a week average over 17 weeks. We could lower the retirement age to 60. And if these didn’t work because of automation we could just continue to restrict work until everyone under a set age who wants a job has one.
@ Fiona
If we replaced the student load / tuition fee scheme with a graduate tax then we could write off the debts of students from 2012 and get those graduating since the policy came in to pay the graduate tax.
@David Evans then you will know that taxes cannot be applied retrospectively.
@ David Evans. So what are your proposed solutions to our dire straits, David?
There were several weaknesses in our 2017 campaign, but we were wading through treacle to start with: we weren’t considered worth airtime, despite a media operation more professional than in 2015. Vince Cable starts with a big advantage: he’s a well-known and well-respected figure. Yes, by all means let him play to his strengths, but will his message on the economy be radical? Will he address the fundamental distortions and injustices?
I go halfway with Jon, but until the next Tory economic smash, we won’t shake the views of most people who think the Tories can be trusted with the economy (or of those who think Labour can be trusted with the NHS). We are not “the party of economic competence”: we have very slim governmental experience compared to the Tories, Vince may not be leader for long and there is nothing about competence on the economy which is distinctively Liberal or represents an image of the party that can last and help to define us. Being the party of a fairer enterprise economy or of making sure powerless people get power – those can be distinctive.
We should certainly play to Vince’s economic prowess. We also need to articulate a distinctive story that is based in reality. Mine would be around fairness to immigrants, those just managing and those who for some reason are picked on.
Expat
You may be right about Labour changing their minds, but the Tories very little chance of that. For better or worse they have nailed their colours to Brexit. If it goes well they will keep their reputation for economic rectitude, if it goes badly they will lose it. As it is unlikely to go well all they can do is drag it out and hope for the best but the brave Brexiteers don’t want that. Tis the Tories problem stuck between the hard place of Brexit and the rock of the Daily Mail, hoping for something to come up.
I’ll take a go at the Gordian knot of student fees.
Firstly all 18 years old’s get a pot of money for training, to spend on further education, skills training as long as it’s recognised as a recognised course.
They then are required to pay a skills tax, which follows them even if they emigrate. If the US can tax their citizens abroad so can we.
The upfront fees are paid for by issuing government backed bonds paying just above the gilt rates and are usable as annuities.
Any profits are used for bursaries for the poor or to support skills required by this country.
Any existing people with student loans can opt to join the new scheme with a set amount of debt forgiven and the remainder repayable at the lower interest rate and at a lower percentage than the 9% in total.
Katharine,
There are several things we all need to do if we believe (as I do and have done for over 40 years) that a successful liberal, democratic party is essential to the wellbeing of this country and all its people. What is more, they are absolutely essential if Liberal Democracy is to be a mechanism that can survive as a body which can improve people’s lives and not become just a talking shop for virtuous people to demonstrate their self worth to fellow true believers.
Firstly, we all need to accept that 2010 to 2015 was the most disastrous period ever for Liberalism in this country, and not (as so many still want to believe) that is was a triumph and a culmination of fifty years of hard work where we finally got into government. In those five years we lost nearly 90% of our MPs, over two thirds of our MSPs and more than half of our councillors. We were nearly relegated to being the fifth biggest party in the UK. Most fundamentally, we lost the support of two thirds of our voters and the trust of most of the country.
We were involved in passing a number of good and important Bills, but there were far, far more bad ones we acquiesced to. However, we even failed to make the public at large aware of the good things we had done, but the bad things where we didn’t fight for the people who needed us, were clear for all to see.
What is fundamental to Liberal Democracy is not words on pieces of paper, or vellum in the case of Acts of Parliament, but lots and lots of Liberal Democrats in positions of power, year after year, to prevent Conservatives and Labour undoing all the things we have fought for over the years. Otherwise Green Investment Banks are given away to venture capitalists, investigations into the banking crisis are shelved and any rail investment north of Birmingham simply dropped.
Secondly, we have to realise that move on is not an answer. It doesn’t matter if we move on or not: If the public do not believe we have changed, they won’t move from the opinion that we betrayed them and so will never vote for us, and all the fine policies we develop will be mere words. We have to accept the need to change and actually have the courage to do it, clearly, unequivocally and publicly. We cannot undo the past, but if we don’t own up to it and apologise for the bad bits, we won’t ever be allowed to own the good bits.
Thirdly, we have to find a way to do all this that is honest, open and effective and not simply a half-baked apology for saying trust us, like Nick’s so called apology for the Tuition Fees debacle. We have to realise that the Brexit Referendum was the inevitable consequence of 2015.
Ultimately it won’t be easy and it will take lots of skill and effort by many people to make it work, but if we carry on as we are, things will just continue to get ever worse.
TCO which bit of “I am a graduate and I have never paid a graduate tax” don’t you get?
Change to what? David, that is the bit I am not getting. You tell us over and over again about the faults of the Coalition years, but don’t convey much idea of what we do next.
Katharine, I know it is difficult for you to accept, but quite simply for the vast majority of people out there, Lib Dems are not to be trusted.
The question I ask you is ‘Do you accept that, fully and unequivocally and without caveats?’ If your answer to that is yes, then the follow up is are you willing to change and show the public you have changed in a way that is meaningful to them or do you want to wait until the public change. The former, once decided on could be done in months. If you want to wait for the public to change, it will take fifty years.
Finally, we have to note that over the last six years we have chosen not to change and the situation has got steadily worse. You just need to look at the seats which we lost in 2015 where the MP did not stand again. Our vote collapsed almost without exception. Without change it is clear that our vote will fall by a similar amount in almost all those seats where the ex MP lost but managed to stem the tide this time.
Only if you say yes to Q1 and also accept that *we* have to change, do any suggestions as to what needs to be done become relevant. Tell me when it is so and we can discuss. Otherwise Liberal Democracy will just die.
Katharine,
” So what are your proposed solutions to our dire straits, David?”
I don’t know whether you meant for the party or the UK but the answer is the same.
The solutions that would work aren’t acceptable and the solutions that are acceptable won’t work.
The solution to regaining trust is hard work and contrition, not screaming at the voters we woz right. Two reasons not to scream that, firstly they don’t want to hear it, secondly the people who carried out the strategy of being the Tories friends definitely were not right; as Charles Kennedy predicted, if only we had listened.
frankie 30th Jul ’17 – 6:58pm..Expat……..You may be right about Labour changing their minds, but the Tories very little chance of that. For better or worse they have nailed their colours to Brexit……….
The Tories, if anything, will change quicker than Labour…Pre-referendum, May warned us of the disaster in leaving the EU; on becoming leader she explained how this ‘disaster’ was now a massive ‘opportunity to become a world leader’…Johnson wrote two articles (one pro, one anti, EU) and only decided to support ‘Brexit’ to further his ambition to become PM…Career politicians will always go with the tide…Rabid ‘Leavers’ like Gove, Davis and Fox will serve in a Tory government of any shade…
Hammond, at least, has accepted that the ‘single market’ is only possible with ‘free movement’ of people; hence his ‘transitional period’….This same ‘free movement’ makes ‘Brexit’ unworkable…
Corbyn knows this and remarks about his ‘confusion’ miss the point….
1)Brexit ain’t his problem..2) His insistence on ‘workers’rights’, etc. keep his option, to vote against a Tory led Brexit, open…3) His remarks regarding ‘respecting the outcome of the referendum’ keep ‘Leavers’ onside..4) Visits to Brussels will forge ‘behind the scenes’ relationships which will be invaluable when the wheels come off…Far easier to use “7/10” as a starting point than “no deal is better than a bad deal”…
‘The Lib Dems are not to be trusted’, most people think, says David Evans. What, and the other parties are trusted more? What sort of a time-warp are you in, David, still agonising over our Coalition years? The two main parties are in critical states. Tory Times journalist Matthew Parris wrote in his Saturday paper of his ‘ deep shame’ at how his party has behaved and is behaving, under the astonishing headline, ‘The Conservatives are criminally incompetent’. As for Labour, they make me think of a fellow balancing precariously on two stools at once, stuck and liable to collapse at any moment.
This is a real time of opportunity for us. As Frankie says, ‘The solution to regaining trust is hard work and contrition, not screaming at the voters ‘ (about anything, Frankie). Sure we have things to live down, and a new leader who played a large part in the Coalition, but we have large things to offer, even apart from our right policy on Brexit – and just look at the others!
” ‘The Lib Dems are not to be trusted’, most people think, says David Evans. What, and the other parties are trusted more? What sort of a time-warp are you in, David, still agonising over our Coalition years?”
Come off it, look at our polls, look at our results, listen to what people say. That Coalition mud is still sticking, and it is pointless to deny it. That truth is not what I personally expected. I thought Tim had done a reasonable amount to move things on, and that thanks also to the Brexit catastrophe, we would at least start to recover from Coalition. But we haven’t.
Yes, people also distrust the Tories and Labour. But then they always have done. Historically, a Tory vote has generally been a class-conscious vote against the evil Labour Party and the working class upstarts they want to help, and a Labour vote has been a class-conscious vote against the greedy middle and upper classes who want to keep all the wealth. You don’t need to trust a class party, if you vote for one. You only need to believe they will help you and do someone else down. For the Lib Dems it’s different. They have always claimed to be superior, non-class-warrior, objective, idealist, trustworthy. Well, the higher you start, the harder you fall. Cleggmania is remembered, much as Eddie the Eagle is remembered. Sadly.
I don’t really have many good answers, because I don’t think there are any – except Time the great healer. Labour’s Iraq error of 2003 has “healed” in the sense that nobody fears the same mistake again from Labour now. Labour’s (not very real) “error” of the 2008 crash has not yet healed, many do still fear a similar mistake. So, 10 years or more are needed to heal big political mistakes. Ours is only 2 years in the past.
To hasten healing:
1. Don’t talk about coalition any more, don’t make any more apologies, don’t for heaven’s sake offer any more defences.
2. Change the blooming subject – Tim tried, Vince is making a good start too.
Expat,
Hammond just got slapped down by May. Read the Daily Mail and the rantings of the Brexiteers, there is no way the Tories can get away from them, they are chained too lunatics. All they can do is drag it out and hope the brave Brexiteers will die off. As to Labour because they are not in charge they have a chance to change the Tories don’t because like it or not they are.
Suggestions that freedom of movement will continue after the UK leaves the EU are wrong, Downing Street has said.
On Friday, Chancellor Philip Hammond warned full controls could take “some time”, prompting speculation free movement may continue in all but name after the UK leaves in March 2019.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40774251
Alas and alack it appears the Tories are still tied to the brave Brexiteers, will they ever escape, I fear not. I would suggest reading the Tory house journal the Daily Mail for anyone who thinks the Tories are pragmatic, they are not and haven’t been for quite awhile.
Hi, David Allen – a bit sad to read your irritated comment, David, because I usually agree with yours, but here there is really nothing for us to argue about. ‘Come off it’? I as much as you deplore the Coalition-caused decline, don’t attempt to deny the harm, but have said strongly elsewhere ‘We are not going to be Tory-lite stooges any more’ (though actually I fear there is a Tory cuckoo now in this little nest!). But the facts of progress are also with us, in the doubling of number of members under Tim’s leadership, and the recovery of many council seats, so I don’t take as gloomy a view as you and David E.
What I was objecting to in the latter’s comments was that I couldn’t see any suggestion of HOW we move on from the slough of despond of which he wrote. You actually agree more with me, because you say Don’t talk about Coalition any more, change the blooming subject! – which is advice with which I ENTIRELY AGREE!
Katharine, How many people voted Conservative in 2017, 2015 and 2010? How many people voted for Labour? And how many voted Lib Dem?
Answers:
Con : 13.6m (42.0%) ; 11.3 m(36.1%); 10.7m(36.1%)
Lab : 12.9 m (40.0%) ; 9.3 m (30.4%); 8.6 m (29.0%)
Lib Dem : 2.4 m (7.4%); 2.4 m (7.9%); 6.8m (23.0%)
So about 40% of the electorate trusted Labour and the Conservatives with their vote in 2017. About 13 million votes each. For the Lib Dems it was 7.4%. Just 2.4 million, down from 6.8m in 2010.
Likewise in Copeland and Workington, the results in 2017 were
Workington: 1,133 (2.7%) and Copeland: 1,404 (3.3%), both down significantly from last time.
But according to you “The two main parties are in critical states.” Presumably you think that a party whose vote is lower than it has been since 1970, and has plummeted in both of the last two elections, has lost all its seats in the West country, has no MPs in Wales (for the first time ever) and has one MP in the whole of the North is in the rudest of health. Perhaps you would rather believe “Things can only get better.”
Well, let me tell you, thing can get worse. Much worse. Like in David Steel’s old contituency Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, now rebounded as Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. We had the MP there up to 2010, Michael Moore, a very nice man and a very able MP. He lost his seat in 2015. We finished fourth with just 2,482 votes and lost our deposit in 2017.
Or Charlie Kennedy’s old seat Ross, Skye and Lochaber, won by him with 52% of the vote in 2010, now we are third with just 21%.
or finally Yeovil, Paddy’s seat up to 2001 – regularly polled 50% or more. 2017 result less than 30%.
I’m sorry to have to say this, but every post like yours which uses disrespectful and disdainful expressions like “What sort of a time-warp are you in” simply makes it more certain we will fail, and it will be down to people not prepared to change like you and sadly most of the people running LDV.
It really is time for Liberals like you to stop pretending. We need to wake up, smell the coffee, and admit we got it totally wrong.
Those are facts about our voting share, of course, David Evans, which I don’t dispute. I’ve seen the party in a worse state, but I’m not pretending anything. Look, I only started commenting on this thread because I saw all your remarks about the terrible state the Coalition brought us to, and I really wondered why you didn’t say JUST WHAT – that being granted, that apologised for – you want the party to do next?
Specifically to us, I don’t think it was disrespectful to say what appeared to me, that you really were stuck in a time-warp, 2010- 15, unable to move on from that; and I am STILL unaware of just WHAT CHANGE you want from me? Yes of course I accept that Coalition faults or inadequacies caused the slump in voter support for us, and that the voters trust us less now. I contend they trust the others a lot less – I’ve never heard a respected Tory commentator denounce his party before – but yes, we have less trust now ourselves than before 2010 . But what next? I don’t see that the voters want us parading in sackcloth and ashes. I see Vince moving on with many party activists, and that many, many people, including leadling lights of the other parties, are now agreeing with some or all of our Brexit policies.
I am really sorry that you apparently feel so hopeless nonetheless.
@ Katharine “You tell us over and over again about the faults of the Coalition years, but don’t convey much idea of what we do next.” That’s a fair request, Katharine.
My answer is to start sounding like authentic Liberals/Liberal Democrats again in championing the needs of the less fortunate in society and producing policies which are evidence based to tackle their needs…… and especially to stop sounding Tory-lite which I’m afraid those Lib Dems enamoured of pure classical market economics do sound like. We should focus more on bread and butter solutions to the lives of ordinary people and families – and then begin the long slog of regaining trust.
David Evans’ comments on the Borders seat has painful resonance for me. In 2007 I was a Lib Dem Cabinet member on Borders Council with Mike Moore as my MP. We were the historic alternative to the Tories in 2006 and 2010. At one fell swoop post Coalition (plus Clegg’s later awful treatment of Mike), that was no longer the case.
Apart from Brexit, there is a policy vacuum in the party. Surely there is a vacancy for a left of centre radical party with realistic radical solutions to what is today a divided society. To be fair to Corbyn, he has diagnosed much of the unfairness and problems
ordinary people face. We are not addressing those issues and we should.
“I don’t think it was disrespectful to say what appeared to me, that you really were stuck in a time-warp, 2010- 15, unable to move on from that; and I am STILL unaware of just WHAT CHANGE you want from me…”
Well OK, we are all a bit at cross purposes. FYI though Katherine, “stuck in a time-warp” is flame language. I know you take pride in discussing things constructively and avoiding rancour, but hey, this time I’m afraid you did fall short, sorry!
It’s understandable that you hate the millstone that is the Coalition record, that you want to repudiate it, that you want shot of it. But wishing ain’t the same as getting.
Mind you, I’m not sure I agree with David Evans on this, either. David, you are asking the leopard to expunge its spots, aren’t you? Well, can it?
If I was just speaking for myself, yes I could. I could point to the leaflets I issued in 2011 when I stood for the Council as an anti-coalition Independent (and unlike most of my neighbouring LD candidates, nearly won!) Equally I’m sure there are others who could validly say they were not personally tainted by Coalition politics. But – You’re asking many of our Parliamentarians to repudiate their own pasts. Would that be a credible thing for them to do? Or would it just invite a storm of “hypocrite”, “liar” and “pale yellow Tory” jibes back at them?
David Raw gets closer. Look for bread-and-butter solutions. Pick small winnable fights, tone down the high-flown theoretical, by all means hammer the Brexiteers, but do other things too. And accept that it’ll be a long slog. Demanding instant redemption won’t work. All the voters to the left of Philip Hammond still see us as dripping with guilt, and they won’t accept a quick whizz out to the confessional booth as an adequate penance.
“To be fair to Corbyn, he has diagnosed much of the unfairness and problems
ordinary people face.”
Well then, isn’t the simple answer that all of us should vote for Jeremy Corbyn?
Katharine,
The cause of a viable third party is not hopeless but realism is required.
Will the lost voters return if the party embarks on a “mea culpa, sackcloth and ashes, the coalition was a terrible mistake, please, please forgive us and come back” campaign?
The public wouldn’t care less and that grovelling wouldn’t impress them or be worth a single vote.
Vince should be effective at damage limitation as the media like him for his plain speaking and ability to turn an attention grabbing phrase they can make into a headline.
My personal view is that, useful within limits though that will be, it won’t change much as we are in a period of strongly polarising politics where electors will be so antagonistic to the ‘other’ side that they won’t dare risk a vote on a third ‘protest’ party as readily as they once did.
However, the centre is still completely vacant and waiting for someone to exploit it.
I realise I tread on thin ice by saying that must include some messages contemptuously dismissed here as “Tory-Lite”, because if it doesn’t what is the difference to a Corbyn/McDonnell offering?
Many voters don’t want dogma or ideology driven politics. They want a party that has sensible policies for the management of the economy and an agenda that will improve the lot of all of us without being an impossibly generous Santa Claus.
@Palehorse you see clearly where others have clouded vision.
Outside the left wing echo chambers, of course many people see unfairness. But the key to this is that fairness =/= equal. The vast majority of people see fairness as being reward propionate to effort, leavened with compassion for those less fortunate through no fault of their own.
That message allied to economic competence and a pro-business / pro-consumer message is where the centre ground and bulge in the bell curve lies.
@ pale horse. Basic semantics, dear boy. Diagnosing a problem is not the same as finding a solution.
If your Consultant said you needed a heart transplant and then treated you for an ingrowing toe nail he may have fallen short of your legitimate expectations – assuming you don’t pop your clogs in the meantime.
I won’t wade into the various backs and forths under the article, but just on the point of how I judge the “mood of the country” – I accept that any personal perception of a national mood is likely to be affected by biases and by the fact that we all, to an extent, live in our bubbles. However, that is the reason I backed up my personal instinct with figures from YouGov – probably the most respected British polling agency right now! I implore any of you to find evidence from studies into public opinion that suggest that the mood of the public is to overturn Brexit.
I think this has turned into a very interesting discussion of what we as a party should be doing, apart from opposing Brexit. Reading the three respected Davids commenting here, I resonate most with David Raw’s advice, ‘Start sounding like authentic Liberals – Liberal Democrats again – championing the needs of the least fortunate and producing policies which are evidence-based to tackle their needs.’ I guess it was our lack of sufficient attention which led to our stupefaction at the Referendum result, and I am worrying now about things that greatly impinge on the poor, like the frozen housing benefit, and now the price-rise British Gas is going to impose, and hoping we will prioritise needs in our statements and our policy development.
Going back to the vexed question of how much we are going to suffer in continuing voter disapproval because of our Coalition involvement, which with Vince as leader cannot be avoided, there are different views here as to how much public contrition is needed. David Allen thinks we will still be seen as ‘dripping with guilt’ by the voters we think should have a natural home with us, but just advises us not to talk about the Coalition any more. (David, I take your point that the phrase I used innocently, factually, is actually loaded, so, sorry, I won’t use it again.) Palehorse thinks the voters ‘couldn’t care less’ about any grovelling from us, and just want a sensibly managed economy and an agenda to improve the lot of all of us.
I think Fiona had a very good point (July 30), in her overall comment with which I entirely agree, in saying that ‘a lot of our support comes from people who respect that we are prepared to be more honest’. This is what we still hold, David Allen, so that although you are right that voters expected better from us than from the other parties and so our fall was greater, trust can be rebuilt I believe on this basis: we do try to be honest, whereas the Tories are notably dishonest, and Labour deliberately obscure.
Jon is right in his approach and the conclusions he reaches. Tim – remember him, used to be leader – had a key saying, “You get nowhere coming second.” Well now it is even more pertinent, “You get nowhere at all falling from second to third, forth or even fifth.”
If we don’t get winning again, and winning soon, in significant numbers, things will just continue to deteriorate. So the key question we have to answer is “Who do we think we can get to vote for us?”, and we have to be very, very objective in our assessment.
Every policy idea, every initiative, every speech right down to every leaflet needs to be analysed in that prism, and Jon is trying to do that, with his comment above.
However, it is the one thing the vast majority of Lib Dems here do not do. Some of us like to pretend we do, but when a good Liberal like Katharine says things like “I contend they trust the others a lot less,” justified by “I’ve never heard a respected Tory commentator denounce his party before,” I know people aren’t changing. Putting it simply, despite all the evidence, Katharine is still clinging to “We are nice people, voters know in their hearts the other parties are worse, and as soon as they realise this, the voters will start to return and we will recover.”
The problem is, that this is exactly the same stuff that was put out year after year in the coalition years by Nick’s lieutenants from 2011 to 2015 and it was seized on by so many as a reason not to promote change then, when it could have had a substantial impact on our result in 2015. As a result we collapsed, year after year in every election culminating in 2015. A change post 2015 when Tim took over would have had a significant impact, but that opportunity was missed as well. And our vote fell again. But still people trot out the same old platitudes – “Labour are going to split”, “The other parties are in a much bigger mess than we are”, “At least we have seen off UKIP” etc. etc. – sadly anything but face up to the reality of the mess we are in.
That is the first thing that has to change.
“What we need from Vince”
He could lean towards either of two broad approaches each of which might work or fail on its own terms but which, if they succeed, would have very different long term outcomes.
Plan A is to make a largely ‘solo’ effort. As the biggest beast in the Lib Dem jungle (and now its king) this must be attractive to him and his talents would serve him well. However, what might happen when he eventually goes is far less certain – saplings don’t thrive under big trees.
Plan B is for reforming how the party works to be the top priority so it becomes ‘fit for purpose’ even if, in the short term (six months or so), that means slightly less focus on getting headlines. The advantage is that after that initial six months he will lead a vastly more capable organisation giving a great return on the time and effort invested. Long term that investment will go on paying dividends.
History is littered with the stories of those who, confident in their own ability, opted for Plan A and set out to conquer the world but failed because they didn’t first ensure that the organisation at their back was fit for purpose and had properly equipped the troops. (A counter example of getting this right is how reformers modernised the Royal Navy in the 18th century so that Britannia really did rule the waves thereafter).
By my reading, Vince Cable’s career experience is primarily as a ‘boffin’ so I fear he may have little insight into what Plan B means leading him to adopt to Plan A by default. I really hope that’s not what he chooses because I see a political landscape full of opportunity if he gets this right.
That’s why I have been banging on about the need to rethink how Lib Dems run themselves and reform an approach that *evidently* doesn’t work. It’s about organisation (it should be lean, flat and adaptive) but it’s also the way policy is made (it should involve *all* the members who have relevant expertise) and also culture (it should be open and questioning). At present we’re on the wrong side of all these divides.
And yet, as David Evans says people still “trot out the same old platitudes”. Vince must challenge that, change that.
So – Katharine thinks we can rebuild trust in our greater honesty, whereas David E thinks this is a recipe for coalitionist misplaced complacency.
Well – Long ago in times BC (Before Clegg!), we probably did, on the whole, have a better reputation for honesty than the other two. The caveat was often then expressed that “well, of course, you’re not going to have to govern the country, so it’s easier for you to be honest and objective”. The voters who used to express that caveat will no doubt feel vindicated by Coalition. Given the chance to break promises and see out principles in exchange for the Ministerial limos, our noble leadership went for it, hook, line and sinker.
Yes, we should seek to rebuild a reputation for honesty and integrity. It’s right for the party, and it’s right for what the party can achieve for the country. But it won’t fall into our laps. On the contrary, it will be an uphill struggle, with us starting at the bottom.
Honesty in politics is rare and often gets no credit. Dare I say it, May’s dementia tax, however cack-handed, did display a measure of honesty. It was, at any rate, a genuine attempt to tackle a problem which less honest politicians would simply prefer to ignore.
Vince’s persona – acting as if he were still an independent pundit (much like Peston) and hence a trustworthy source of information – could help us with this. To preserve his “honest” reputation, he will have to stay “honest”. That means, for example, not slagging off Corbyn once a day, just slagging Corbyn off when he has made a bad mis-step which genuinely deserves pointing out. It means being candid that we may not always know all the answers. It means not resorting (as most politicians do!) to vainglorious, partisan, and largely unjustified boasting. We can recover. It won’t be quick though!
For “see out principles” above, please read “sell out our principles”. Sorry!
Yes, let us by all means rebuild our party’s reputation for honesty and integrity. I’m not sure that we entirely lost it – think of Nick Clegg’s apology for example – but the weakness in your argument, David Allen, if I may gently point out, is that Vince is also identified with the Coalition and its decisions in which he took part. Our leader who didn’t vote for an increase in tuition fees is our leader no longer.
What then do we do? Stop talking about the Coalition (as you yourself suggested), ask Vince to speak out against the ills of the poorest and most ‘left-behind’ as well as recommending macro-economic policies, further develop our party policies in accordance with the principles we all believe in. Perhaps Gordon is right to say also that major organisational reform is needed. As to Jon’s plea for evidence that the country is turning against Brexit, I can only point to the many news reports of a growing tide. I hope we can gain the credit in due course; there is an argument that we should have more boldly, not as quietly as we did, campaigned in the GE against Brexit, to win over more of the Remainers who I gather (something on the lunchtime news) surged to Labour.
@Katharine Pindar “think of Nick Clegg’s apology for example”
Unfortunately that is a terrible example. Nick Clegg’s apology was widely (and wonderfully in the case of the “I’m so so sorry” video) ridiculed and came across as an apology for making a promise rather than breaking one. It only reminded people of, and added to, the damage to the party’s reputation for honesty and integrity. The behaviour of Alistair Carmichael around the 2015 General Election did not help either.
Despite some other shortcomings, Tim Farron came across as honest and sincere, and it is probably important for Vince Cable to maintain that in all of his dealings with the media.
The analysis of the British election study released today confirms the importance of the party leader in campaigning “While this was undoubtedly the Brexit election, it was also a tale of two leaders and a campaign that mattered” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242
“Despite having the clearest pro-EU position and a promise of a second referendum, the Liberal Democrats failed to pick up many more Remain voters than they lost.
Instead, Labour, which was already the most popular party in 2015 among those who voted Remain in 2016, scooped the lion’s share.”
“Not only did it win over a large number of Remainers from the Conservatives, but also from the pro-EU Greens and Lib Dems. Overall, nearly two-thirds of 2015 Greens went to Labour, as well as about a quarter of Liberal Democrats.”
“The Lib Dems were not the first choice for those favouring a soft Brexit – possibly because of the lingering effects of coalition government, a perception of ineffective leadership and a realisation that they could not win in most seats.”
“The main reason that Labour did so well during the campaign is the strong performance of Jeremy Corbyn, especially relative to Theresa May.”
So when Jon Andrew asks “What do we need from Vince” – Based on this study – it is
– a clear position on a soft Brexit that retains access to the single market while maintaining an option to remain.
– effective leadership that restores the party as a credible challenger in its traditional strongholds.
Brexit is going to dominate the UK political scene through to the spring of 2019. Vince cannot rely on a remain vote in a second referendum to differentiate his position on the economy from that of Philip Hammond’s and/or John McDonald’s. He will need to be able to present a credible alternative if the party is to regain its position as a potential party of government.
“Yes, let us by all means rebuild our party’s reputation for honesty and integrity. I’m not sure that we entirely lost it.” Sorry Katharine, it’s another example of how we refuse to look at the evidence and change. To 90%+ of the population we lost if totally. To almost all of the remaining 10% there is probably one local Lib Dem, who is a Cllr or maybe an MP, who is personally trusted, much more than the party itself and possibly despite the party itself.
That is what we have left to build on. Maybe we can, but if we to come out of this stronger rather than just in the same frame of mind where we accept the same platitudes again, we will fail yet again when the real test comes.
‘The Lib Dems were not the first choice for those favouring a soft Brexit’, reports the British Election Survey – thank you, Joe Bourke, for conveying that to us, along with conclusions the Survey and you have drawn. This is something for us to dwell on, I think, because we should have been, so why were we not? Why did we lose Remainers to Labour?
The survey suggests possibly it might have been ‘lingering effects of the Coalition government, perception of ineffective leadership, and a realisation that Lib Dems could not win in most seats.’ Well, the first and last of those reasons may still be with us for some time to come. And ‘ineffective leadership’? Tim was distracted by the media and even insider attacks on his supposed views, and towards the end of the campaign appeared less straightforward in some TV interviews than he had been earlier. I think myself, though, that the overall campaign needed to be stronger from us all in insisting that Brexit was wrong for the country and a final referendum on the terms would prove acceptable. We should have had the courage of our convictions, at a time when Labour was equivocal about staying in the single market (and even still is); Lib Dem candidates inclined to play down or even repudiate the party line like some of those in Devon and Cornwall did not find avoidance a winning formula.
I guess we need further research and thought on this, but it is evident anyway as Joe suggests that we are going to need Vince to provide strong and effective leadership, both on the Brexit negotiations and on economic issues. I would add, we must give strong and consistent party backing on the same issues.