Once per Parliament, the Federal Board is obliged to put before Conference a party strategy. Article 5.1 of the Federal Constitution states:
The Federal Board shall have the responsibility periodically, and at least onceper Parliament, for preparing a document outlining the Party’s strategy, inconjunction with the Leader’s political strategy, for submission for debate and
agreement by Conference.
The Board’s plan is to bring a strategy to Autumn Conference. If the anger following the local elections is anything to go by, members will be looking for a commitment to developing a nationally relevant message to re-establish us as a viable national alternative. Ed Davey’s comments about wanting us to be “the party of Middle England” have sparked huge concern in the party. There is a feeling that we are being too timid for fear of upsetting the Daily Mail at a time when the country is screaming out for a liberal alternative to the populist parties of right and left. Imagine that, a party that fixes stuff, stands up for liberal values and really resonates with people who are, to use a good Scottish word, scunnered with politics.
PoliticsHome has an article this weekend titled “Inside the Lib Dem strategy rethink.” Several MPs are quoted, including Tom Gordon, Layla Moran, Daisy Cooper along with some who are un-named.
Politics Home says the party is looking at changing direction:
To that end, the party is undergoing a strategy and policy overhaul, with key areas of discussion including the economy, welfare, and, as the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum approaches, a bolder stance on the European Union.
Tom Gordon confirmed the rethink:
I don’t think it was necessarily the wrong approach, but just given the nature and the timeline of where we’re at in this parliament and the political events and that fragmentation, I think there is now a rethinking of what we do, what we offer, how we’re more punchy, how we’re bolder, and what the offer from us is.
A senior MP hinted at an approach that to me sounds too managerial:
The MP said the party is “starting to think about the economy in a much more structural manner”, and the frontbench team had been “set a task of properly scrutinising departmental budgets, [looking at] where money is being spent”.
They added that the party needs to “make sure we are economically credible”, with there being more appetite from figures at the top of the party towards thinking about what the Lib Dem offering would be in a potential future coalition.
Layla Moran sounded optimistic about what was coming:
There’s definitely a frustration that it feels like we’ve been talking about the same things – social care and rivers – and that just felt like we weren’t really moving forward.
“So us evolving the position and being quite mindful about how we do that now is really important.”
She added: “There are a lot of Lib Dem MPs geeking out on how we fix the deep issues that the country’s got, and we are going to come up with something that is quite bold and exciting and coherent.”
Daisy Cooper said that it wasn’t so much a change in direction:
She told PoliticsHome
the party was now looking at seats to target beyond just the so-called ‘Blue Wall’ – historically Conservative constituencies that have switched to the Lib Dems in recent years.
“Now that we have consolidated our existing seats, really our plan is very much to go out and to win more, but it’s not a change in direction, it’s just the next step.”
It seems that the party has been engaging with newer MPs to get them on board:
Newer MPs told PoliticsHome that they felt the party leadership had been engaging on how to move the party forward by meeting with backbench MPs, and carrying out extensive research via polling and data analysis.
However Westminster is not the be all and end all and I know of many former and current Councillors who feel that they have been banging their heads against a brick wall warning about the need to properly take on the Greens.
At the same time as the Politics Home article, party Chief Executive Mike Dixon has sent out an Explainer email to members. While it is not for sharing here, he does at least acknowledge that there is a diversity of opinion on how to proceed:
I should say up front: there are no single right answers to these questions. People in our party have different, competing and entirely sensible views. That is healthy and good in a political party.
Instead, this email aims to give us all a shared understanding of the underlying facts about what is happening.
The Board will be consulting on the final details of its strategy motion which will need to be submitted by the deadline of 24 June, so there is not a lot of time.
The important thing is that the motion should be fully amendable by members so that when it comes to the debate in Brighton in September, Conference has a full range of views to look at and digest.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour and the Liberals in 1924 and today
Brexit: The Uncivil War - the TV drama with Benedict Cumberbatch
A power vacuum?
I am liberal, woke and proud of it. We should all accept such descriptions with pride
Steve Nash
Tom Arms
Peter Wrigley
Roland
Ian Sanderson (RM3)
17 Comments
It is time for us to slay some sacred cows. Even though it was our Party that introduced the triple lock on the State pension, we need to accept it has done its job in approximately restoring the value of the New State Pension relative to earnings. We now need to move to a smoothed earning-based link that ensures that pensions will grow in line with the economy. As a sweetener for pensioners, we should also raise the income tax threshold for those over state pension age so that it is always greater than the New State Pension. I have been receiving the old Basic State Pension for over a decade, so will lose personally from this but inter-generational fairness is more important.
I hope our west country MPs, who will face a strong challenge from Reform, will get as much input into the new strategy as those from London and the Home Counties.
The thing that struck me about the member mailing was what it didn’t talk about, Membership & our failure to attract people under 30.
Our Membership is about a quarter of The Greens – that’s pretty chilling when our current Strategy only works with steady & intense Canvasing. Even then we seem to accept that our model doesn’t work in The Inner Cities.
We are an Aging Party & in the long run that is not sustainable. A recent Poll of Voters attitudes to Brexit revealed that among Green Voters 38% were too young to Vote in 2016, the figure for Our Voters was 3%. Parties that don’t continually recruit New Generations will die – slowly at first , then quickly.
Our usual response to Questions – Its complicated/ on the one hand…
It just won’t do. We actually have some fairly extreme positions, in Theory – lets start articulating them in as few words as possible.
@Paul is surely right, do we have age breakdowns for stats on members and active supporters?
Lets hope the Board and the Conference Committee can agree to schedule this at a time when most members will have arrived in Brighton and not at 9am on Saturday morning
The current ‘explainer’ and previous editions seem to be obsessed with statistics, rather than being a proactive guide to the way forward. We don’t want to follow the managerial approach of Labour, but develop a strategy with an emotional appeal based on the reality of people’s struggles with the cost of living in particular. As has been mentioned we are failing to recruit young members, like Corbyn in 2017 and the Green Party now. We desperately need inspirational leadership with a clear vision and direction to a better society to benefit people of all ages and locations. Large parts of the UK are like no-go areas for Lib Dems with 100s of lost deposits in general elections and little support in between.
I hope the current strategy review will start to deal with these issues and give a coherent lead for all. I first joined the Liberal Party in November 1967 and haven’t given up hoping for real improvement now !
Personally I’m with Tim Farron who is quoted in the Politics Home article as saying the Lib Dems ought to be the party for sensible people, or words to that effect.
Typo: I first joined the Liberal Party in November 1966, almost 60 years ago this year !
When I wrote 5.1 in the Constitution, my over-riding intention was to ensure that the mass Party had some rights in relation to overall strategy, which was an important innovation. It also explicitly expected a confluence between organisational strategy (clearly the Board’s responsibility, advised by the Chief Executive) and political strategy, where one expects the Leader to have and make explicit a broad political strategy in terms of the Party’s identity, direction and messaging. I do not know in this case whether the Board’s approach is linked to input from the Leader. In former cases, that is how it worked.
A new strategy/approach requires a new leader
@Lawrence Cox. To read your comment one might want to believe that the Triple Lock has ensured pensioners have decent pensions. It hasn’t and UK state pensions are amongst the worst in Europe. Your comment also compounds the lie that the UK can’t afford to improve the lot of pensioners. I do not have Steve Webb’s improved pension and if I relied on the state pension alone, I would be living on £12, 592 per year, compared to median national income of more than £39,500. Pensioners on the new improved pension would have around £1000 more. There are many pensioners in the UK who have to live on this paltry income and it is frankly near the poverty line.
We can and should afford the triple lock.
What is also needed in order to raise pensions to a level pensioners can live on is higher contributions during the working life and the Tory cuts in NI are really quite disgraceful, when actually higher contributions are needed.
Instead of penalising poor pensioners, we should be raising taxes on those with very high incomes and levying an annual wealth tax.
Until we have pensions people can actually live on, let’s hear no more about stopping the triple lock
We must have more of an emphasis on HOUSING and HEALTH generally. The issue of Leasehold abolition, with the Government apparently prepared to wait 40 Years for its phasing out, is a sitting duck. Where are the questions about this in Parliament?
“…….. UK state pensions are amongst the worst in Europe. ”
It depends how you define a “state pension”. If we take a broader view and include state mandated pension contributions then the UK performs better than might be expected.
The Parliamentary report in the link below references a “Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index” which, somewhat surprisingly, places the UK above Germany and France.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf
@PeterMartin. I have a sister and brother-in-law in Germany and their pensions are much bigger than mine. They made bigger contributions and get more pension.
Why do UK politicians shy away from telling voters that in order to get better pensions they have to pay more? You can’t have Scandinavian benefits with USA style taxation, but too many like to tell voters we can. All the talk is of lower taxes not on improved services and pensions
@ Mick,
“Why do UK politicians shy away from telling voters that in order to get better pensions they have to pay more?”
I’m surprised you need to ask.
Young people are struggling with the cost of living generally, and in particular the costs of housing which can make family life very difficult. There is a general feeling, rightly or wrongly, that as a generation they are having it tough in comparison to previous generations.
Many are also astute enough to know that their national insurance contributions don’t get put aside for their future use but go into a pot to pay for the pensions of us boomers and, as such aren’t a guarantee of any future pension they may receive. Neither are they sure they’ll live long enough to benefit if the pension age keeps rising as planned.
This is not to argue that elderly people shouldn’t receive decent pensions but rather that the economics of what is possible needs more discussion as people live longer and the birth rate falls.
Essentially, it’s not so much about putting money aside for future pensions, and in fact the government can’t do this. It is about creating a future economy capable of diverting adequate resources to support an increased number of elderly pensioners.
Your example on German pensions is anecdotal. Having lived there for a while I’m surprised the Aussie means tested system is rated so highly. But, I accept this is anecdotal evidence too.
I read Mike’s email with interest. It started well before sliding into more of the same.
Strong analysis on the campaign model, and the point that demography no longer limits us is exactly right.
But the email diagnoses why the populists are winning and then sets its own diagnosis aside.
Reform’s appeal is named as people feeling taken for granted. The Greens’ tax the rich, abolish landlords pitch is filed under demographics. Both parties are cutting through on the same thing: a sense that the settlement is rigged and people have no say.
Reform blames migrants and elites; the Greens blame landlords and the rich. One grievance, two villains.
That is a fairness and power problem, and our own data says so. The single strongest predictor of a Reform win was the share of voters with no passport. Stuck in place, no agency, no exit.
So making Europe the centre of our story answers the wrong question. The growth case is real, but rejoin and grow is the post-2008 experiment again: a bigger pie, captured by the same hands. That settlement built Reform.
The liberal answer to unfairness is ours to take, and no one else can take it. Not Reform’s scapegoats, not the Greens’ symbolism. Put concentrated power and fairness at the centre of the strategy. That is the story the country is waiting for.
Paul Barker has hit the nail on the head .We are increasingly a party of older people fighting old battles . That there will be a younger electorate at the next election seems (with the exception of Layla Moran to have passed us bye) . now i am not talking about novelty policies to “attract” young people This would be an insult to younger members and puts them in a youth box , but more policy with drive and ambition on recent illiberal acts from the far right . Social Liberalism should not be about tribalistic liberalism but how we progress to a modern form of Refreshed Liberal Democracy .