“A week is a long time in politics”, so quipped Harold Wilson – although in the aftermath of Brexit, perhaps ‘week’ should be replaced by ‘hour’. The glut of political developments since June 23rd have evidently led Tim to forget the nadir of 2015. “There must be an election”, he demanded upon the accession of Theresa May to the premiership. Right now, we will gain little if Britain were to go to the polls early. We need more time to rebuild our grassroots organisations and to formulate a liberalism that acknowledges the circumstantial changes catalysed by Brexit.
We should take our press office’s releases lauding the surge in membership that has taken place following the referendum with a pinch of salt. The 15,000+ increase in members is impressive, but we need to find ways to secure our new members within a grassroots framework which contracted massively during our time in coalition. Maybe the way forward is to follow the example of left-wing parties in continental Europe, and start community organising.
With regard to electoral strategy, we are rightly proud to be identified as ‘the Europe party’ – and it is vital that we keep on making the positive case for internationalism.
But perhaps we would be better served electorally by advancing a ‘meatier’ liberalism. That means keeping Tim’s emphasis on liberal values – particularly regarding the refugees, but combining this with an acceptance of Brexit. Are the voters in the South-West who voted Leave, but voted for us in 2010, 2005, and 2001 intolerant? Of course not. Voting Leave and liberalism are not irreconcilable. We should therefore be cautious of fighting an election on this assumption.
In short, we probably are not organised enough – structurally and ideationally, to fight an early election. Before we can start talking of retaking old strongholds such as North Devon and Yeovil, we first have to adapt to the reality of a post-EU Britain, and formulate a liberalism with an appeal beyond ‘the 48’.
* Ioan Phillips is a Liberal Democrat member, and is studying History and Politics at Corpus Christ College, Oxford.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have a goat day tomorrow!
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
Mick Taylor
16 Comments
Agree with you, Ioan. Good to hear that thoughtful Liberalism is still alive and well in the home of the Pelican.
Two thrusts for me : one organisation, the other policy, before we rush into calls for an early election (which is beyond our control anyway).
First refresh and keep pursuing the age old policy of community politics that we followed from the 1960’s onward and brick by brick rebuild the organisation so many abandoned when disillusioned by events post 2010. The UK needs a revival not a destruction of local government.
Second, on policy. Refresh the social liberal tradition with a proper analysis of poverty and inequality – today’s latest Rowntree Report should be digested and reflected on. There are massive divisions of wealth and power in society and we need a convincing response on that – especially now that Labour seems to be imploding.
BBC News website today : “Poverty costs UK £78bn a year, Joseph Rowntree Foundation says”.
I agree with most of this piece. We don’t have any control over when there will be a General Election. Calling for one now doesn’t seem helpful. Lib Dems are not ready. Meanwhile we should reach out, rebuild a support base based on positive Liberal values (including a carefully thought-out and inclusive stance on Brexit as it evolves). We cannot assume that the 48% will support the Lib Dems automatically at an early election. Article 50 has not been invoked and the implications of leaving the EU will not be apparent to most people until after that.
Ioan
Agree with your analysis of our current position organisationally, that we are very fragile to fight any major all-up elections. I am hoping that by next May, when English County elections are fought, that we will have enough of the structure and function rebuilt that we may make some good gains in some places, and allow the media to start giving us some serious coverage again. At present we are “starved of the oxygen of publicity”, to adapt a Thatcherite phrase to our current situation.
I do not accept that we just accept Brexit, however. I live in the South West, where as you say many of our supporters – and quite a few members too – voted to Leave. I agree that there are some sound reasons why some people on the leftish side of politics would want to leave, but let’s be honest here, it was the overwhelming opposition by the (right wing and abrasive, sometimes sub-racist) media to staying that fired up this vote, just as it was the overwhelming approval in 1975 which delivered the Stay In vote then. We should be campaigning for more honest coverage in the media, and calling out exaggerations and lies as part of the “meatier liberalism” you call for. Much of the media is not liberal in any sense we understand in the party, so many of our attitudes will be in conflict. If we are serious about our politics, we have to devise and implement a strategy to explain these things!
One of the more sensible/realistic contributions I have read in recent times. I would add that contemplating an election while the legitimacy of how the Tories funded the last is under investigation is naive.
The big challenge in Tory facing seats where we need a tactical vote in order to win will be what’s in it for them to vote tactically again. A possible coalition with whoever has the most seats and a promise to overturn the referendum result will likely repulse rather than attract people who voted for us in 2010 but voted Lab, Green and Ukip in 2015.
A proportional voting system as a prerequisite of any coalition deal would be a start.
I agree with Tim13 on both points. We campaigned for Remain because membership of the EU is not only best for the British economy, but also our best hope for dealing with issues such as climate change and international terrorism is to co-operate with our nearest neighbours. Leaving was a stupid idea and it remains a stupid idea which will be shown up as such as soon as any attempt to implement it in practice is made. At very least we should not accept a post EU Britain until someone articulates what it will be.
We must accept that *some* Leave voters *are* intolerant and we cannot accommodate them. The risk of being the universal recipient of protest voters was shown during the coalition and we should not seek to go back there. The OP is right to say that Leave voters are not all intolerant, but the evidence is that voting Leave was closely associated with hostility to immigration in the parts of the country which in fact have the lowest immigration – including the SW, of which I too am a resident. This is not intolerance as such, it is the normal human fear of that which is new and unknown to you. We should understand that and certainly not vilify it, but we should not build our policies on the assumptions that those fears are justified. Firstly, that would alienate the open-minded liberals who should be our core vote, and secondly because such policies will not work on their own terms. It is highly doubtful that Brexit can significantly reduce immigration, but even if it does, eliminating immigration will not end unemployment nor reduce pressures on public services, because the causes of those problems are quite other.
Our strategy for the 52% should be to point out how Brexit does not alleviate unemployment and the funding crisis in public services – which it will exacerbate – and to propose solutions to these problems that really do address the root causes. For once those who have used immigration and the EU to hide the blame for the real causes are going to have to put up or shut up; and they cannot put up.
Excellent post Ioan, agree that at national level what the party stands for in the May – Corbyn era has yet to be established. All that would happen is that TM would remain PM with a larger majority, and Lab would probably enter a major internecine bloodbath earlier. Even if we were calling for an early election only for party reasons, where would we make gains at the moment – might we even have further losses?
How much better it would be if the Lib Dems were known as the Worldwide party rather than the Europe party.
I do agree with a lot of this.
From a pure policy perspective, we don’t have much time to discuss, formulate and agree any policies that would be markedly different from those that we ran on in 2015.
Additionally, we need to allow some time for fresh talent to come through to stand as PPCs. If a snap election were called, there would be quite a few old faces standing. Assuming we won a relatively healthy number of seats (not a given by any means), I think a lot of potential new candidates might fight it difficult to build a base on their own terms.
With so many new, younger members, I would like to see younger candidates and they should be provided with every opportunity to succeed.
Excellent article Ioan. Couldn’t agree more.
To disagree slightly I think it is more a matter of position.
We call for an election all we like, ultimately we can not force it. But it shows fight and strength. To repose the question how would you sell not calling for it exactly?
I think calling for an election and starting to mobilise is sensible. We might have to fight one any time regardless and it is action and that appears better than inaction. If it generates some headlines too that is good.
Plus I believe we will win.
I fully agree, Ioan. I also think that we are inconsistent in demanding an ‘endorsement’ election after being the party that successfully argued for the stability of fixed term parliaments. There is no constitutional requirement for such an election and we should not be seen to now be trying to overturn our own reform. Similarly, I believe we are wrong to promise a return to EU membership (I know that is not exactly our position, but that is how it will generally be interpreted.), a promise which is not in our power to deliver, but would depend on the decision of all twenty seven EU member states. Have we not learnt from tuition fees?
ideationally ?
I agree fully with Ioan. Let us continue the fightback from grass roots.
Our priorities should be housing, and mental health and getting the word out.
Many are coming back because they now realise we were not so bad in coalition.
Patience.
Why are we not arguing that any brexit move has to be endorsed by parliament ? We elect a government not a president so why should there be an election just because of a change of prime minister ? If we do leave the EU I think it would be very difficult to get back into it on the same favourable terms we have now. I therefor agree with your argument Ioan.
I agree about positioning. I also think an internationalist stance which includes our continent is sensible.
Some of us learned our politics long before fixed term Parliaments. We tend to think about legitimacy. And so put the bones of a very basic election in place. I still think it is possible for a fairly early election though not immediately. I would rather be a bit prepared.
Some work on organisation is essential for other reasons than early election. But also on policies and to find a way to get some media coverage.
Most people who voted “Leave” did so because they believe that Britain is run by a wealthy elite, who know and care nothing for ordinary British people, and so had no problem handing control over to the EU so long as it financially benefitted themselves. They saw those running big business and those running the main political parties as that elite. It was a great mistake of the “Remain” campaign to present itself in a way that fitted in with that notion.
The supercilious attitude of so many in our party which dismisses those who voted “Leave” as oiks motivate by racism, is appalling, and if it continues our party deserves to remain where it is. Yes, some of those who are anti-elitist aren’t in a position where they have learned the right language to use not to appear to be racist. However, it is a mark of how elitist many of those in the party are that they can’t see beyond this and understand the real concerns of those people.
A tricky issue here, I believe, is that the deepest prejudice in this country is class prejudice, and so the supercilious elite actually are prejudiced in favour of immigrants against white working class people. If you experience that prejudice and are vocal about it, yes you may come across as racist.
The point is not to let those who experience class prejudice be taken over by the real racists because the real racists are the only ones who go out and work with them. We used to be able to do this. It used to be our prime role to represent those who felt unrepresented. We used to understand that liberalism meant “none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity” instead of having a version of it which seems to be a mixture of economic theory that in practice favours the business elite and side issues which while important are probably most appreciated by those who are wealthy enough not to have more pressing concerns.