The style of political campaigning today has become infinitely more professional than when I first became involved in politics. In the 1960s the news cycle was far slower and gentler; TV and radio interviewers treated politicians with respect, and would allow them to offer long answers without interruption. Now we have ‘breaking news’, daily opinion polls, multiple staff to advise and aggressive interviewers. Political leaders are far better equipped to follow the headlines and shifting public moods. But do they still dare to lead?
The UK’s debate on public spending represents a classic example of government and main opposition doing their utmost not to explain underlying choices to the public, while following conflicting evidence of popular preferences – lower taxes, higher public investment, resistance to cuts in health and welfare. Ever since Margaret Thatcher used the additional revenue streams from North Sea Oil and the proceeds of privatisation to fund current government spending rather than to build a sovereign wealth fund, Conservatives (like their Republican allies in the USA) have declared themselves the party of low taxation and a smaller state – without explaining to voters what cuts would be needed to reach those goals. Labour was so wary of challenging that myth that it pledged not to raise any of the largest sources of revenue if it won the 2024 election. The only party that has explicitly entered an election campaign with a pledge to increase taxes was Paddy Ashdown’s Liberal Democrats in 1997, with our ‘penny on income tax for education.’ A senior Labour adviser told me when we published our manifesto that ‘nobody will vote for a party that says it will increase taxation’ – though quite a few did.
Labour leaders knew very well before the 2024 campaign started that the rising number of pensioners is driving up the welfare and health budgets, that Tory cuts in public investment had left an urgent need to rebuild hospitals, schools, railways and roads, and that leaving the EU had damaged our economy and thus the Treasury’s revenue stream – by some £40 billion, according to think tank calculations. Facing the wrath of the right-wing media, the challenge of Reform and the Tories, they did not dare to explain the position to our uninformed electorate. On top of all that, we now face additional challenges: a downturn in the global economy and international trade, resulting from Trump’s disruptive tactics and spreading international conflicts and the unavoidable commitment to increase defence spending substantially. Keir Starmer has made very little effort, however, to explain to the British public the choices that we face: he’s not a natural political leader, more a manager.
So what should we say to the public, confused by Farage’s easy promises, Badenoch’s attacks, the hysteria of the Daily Mail and claims by right-wing think tanks that tackling ‘waste’ in the public sector will miraculously fill the gap? It’s not easy for an opposition party to go against a public mood, facing a disillusioned public unlikely to accept unwelcome messages even from friendly politicians. The case that Ed Davey and others have made for moving much closer to the European Union becomes more powerful week by week, as Trump’s behaviour shows that the UK-US ‘special relationship’ has become an empty phrase and that we need a counterweight to pressures from Washington and US tech companies. We’re right to persist in arguing that Britain’s social care crisis must be grasped, arguing that money invested in social care will be partially recouped by savings in the NHS budget. It’s harder for us to argue the case for tax reform in front of an unprepared public audience – though Labour’s following the Tories in loading more spending on Council Tax collected by local authorities is making it easier to see that our current tax system isn’t fit for purpose. And we will have to point out that any national industrial strategy that does not invest more in schools and FE colleges to raise motivation and skills will fail. We will need to craft our approach to defence spending carefully, against a government that is so far transferring money for international development to defence without admitting how far short that will fall from the NATO pledge it is offering. The UK needs a different emphasis in defence, more oriented to home defence and security, less to force projection across other continents.
Labour has been incredibly timid in its first year, across the board. Political leadership means changing the direction of public debate, persuading the public to understand the choices that government makes from a different perspective. Starmer has so far shown little ability to engage public attention in this way. Badenoch is combative and negative. Farage is selling easy answers again, relying on voters to have forgotten what he promised them as easily a few years ago. We have to find a way to cut through, against a largely hostile (and often trivialising) media climate, that we are now facing a national and global emergency which requires some very hard choices, a different approach to political debate, and unavoidably a higher level of public investment and spending.
* William Wallace is Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues in the Lords.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The belligerent youths are back: The sacking of Christine Jardine
A quartet of Lib Dem wins in council by-elections
Corso Street event tomorrow! #dundeewestend
Details needed on Welsh rail investment
The 'elevator pitch' for solo consultants
Simon McGrath
Lin Macmillan
Richard Dickson
Nigel Quinton
Chris Lewcock
12 Comments
If Farage said he believes the world to be flat 20 to 30pc would believe him. We will never be able to compete with that so should not try Reasoned thought,though dull always wins through. But we do have to shout louder and more often than we are now
So up to 70 or 80% know he’s a liar and would welcome our pointing that out. There are enough people in favour of rational thought to make it a viable strategy under FPTP.
We do have to shout louder! When canvassing I tend to find that most people, including many Reform voters, actually want the things that we want: a decent home, schooling, reliable health and social care, justice, transport infrastructure, security, family, community, and employment that suits their skills and character and which pays enough for them to live, plus a little bit extra for treats – such as holidays and entertainment. They just don’t know what it is we stand for. They are potential Liberal Democrats who just don’t realise it. Why aren’t we mopping up?
Peter Davies: “So up to 70 or 80% know he’s a liar and would welcome our pointing that out.”
Agreed. Perhaps we should refer to him as Nigel Mirage.
I do find it amazing that someone can make a deliberately ironic statistic to emphasise and ridicule the naivety of some Farage followers. That gets turned by another post into a different statistic implying that those ridiculous naive followers are a maximum number of people who would support Farage, which then becomes a reason in a third post for surmising that one single thing ‘rational thought’ will alone be a viable strategy under FPTP for the party.
Sorry, but being slightly ironic I think it’s a bit more complex than that
… but then of course all of the commenters could be being ironic.
Don’t you just love the English language! 🙂
We might reflect on this from John Major. It is easy for a senior statesman, but still ………
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/26/john-major-aid-cuts-and-trump-xi-national-self-interest
“The only party that has explicitly entered an election campaign with a pledge to increase taxes was Paddy Ashdown’s Liberal Democrats in 1997”
Apart from the Liberal Democrats in 2001, 2017 and 2019 with a similar 1p on income tax proposal. And arguably 2005 with a proposal for a (then new) 50p higher rate band.
There were also proposals for £26bn of additional taxes in 2024 – though no changes to the main rates – and even the 2010 manifesto had a planned small net overall increase in taxation if you include the contingency fund.
@ Hywell. The Lib Dem’s of twenty years ago had a penny on or off income going up and down like a yo yo.
On a more historical note the Asquith Liberal government fought (and won) two elections in 1910 on raising taxes, as did the Attlee Labour Government in 1945 and 1950.
Thanks for the correction, Hywel. Though we didn’t make these elements in our recent manifestos as prominent a part in our campaigning as we had in 1997.
I’m afraid too often political ‘leaders’ and sadly too many ‘followers’ as well think that winning a leadership election gives them the right to do whatever they want even if it is something
1) they never mentioned (e.g. Cut Winter Fuel Payments – Starmer)
2) contrary to what they promised to do to (e.g. protect the constitution – Trump)
3) contrary to what they said or implied to get elected (e.g. I’m a good socialist – Starmer);
4) like put an end to broken promises (Oops, which so many of his supporters justified by pointing out he got more votes than anyone else in the party)
5) like dropping into an election manifesto a promise not to increase Income Tax, NI or VAT despite not being discussed at conference.
Ultimately most leaders have an inner sanctum of trusted advisors, fellow travellers or just plain recipients of the OBN, who insulate them against having to face up to the real world of ordinary party activists and the general public.
The best leaders I have come across e.g. Kennedy, Ashdown despite having close advisors also listened to ordinary members and largely trusted them to get on with it in their patch. It was never 100% perfect, but the results achieved enabled the party to grow consistently. If Ed learns to do that as well as them, we can build ever more on 2024’s success and will continue to grow to 2029 and beyond, despite all the severe difficulties we have to face.
Can anyone tell me what the Lib Dem policy is on law and order? Would they be prepared to build more prisons to keep victims and the public safe? Would they be prepared to get tough on drugs such as cannabis? We only have to see the effect on Daniel Angorin’s killer.
“leaving the EU had damaged our economy and thus the Treasury’s revenue stream – by some £40 billion, according to think tank calculations”.
The ongoing loss of £40billion per annum to the Treasury is significant. Why is this not a focal point for LibDem leadership:
– on the benefits of EU trade to the Treasury coffers
– exposing the recklessness of Brexit
– challenging the Government to go for real growth and support our businesses by improving our trading relationship with the EU
– give clarity on the longer term objective to rejoin EU as a full and trustworthy member.