I have a dark and deeply embarrassing confession to make.
I once voted for Margaret Thatcher.
Please don’t rush to judge me just yet. I’m sharing this not to shock, but because it contains an uncomfortable truth about how people really make political choices – and what liberals ignore at our peril.
When I cast that vote, I was young and foolish – and politically uninformed. I didn’t grow up in a household where politics was discussed. My parents voted, but never said who for. Politics wasn’t taught in school, at least not in any meaningful way. I didn’t yet have the tools to ask the most basic questions of power: who funds this party? What does the leader actually believe? Who benefits from their policies – and who pays the price?
That leads to the first lesson. Citizenship education matters. Democracy only works if people are equipped with critical thinking skills, not just facts, but the habit of interrogation. Without that, voters are left to rely on shortcuts or haphazard choices.
Which brings me to the second lesson: visibility matters. At the time, Thatcher was already Prime Minister. She was familiar. I felt I knew her. And the human brain, wired as it is to minimise risk, usually prefers the known to the unknown.
We see the same dynamic today. Donald Trump’s rise was not just about ideology; it was about exposure. He was ubiquitous long before he entered politics. People felt they knew him, and familiarity breeds a misplaced sense of safety.
I hear a similar pattern emerging among younger voters in the UK. Many are gravitating towards Reform or the Greens, not because they’ve exhaustively compared manifestos, but because those are the voices that dominate their digital world. The larger parties are simply absent from their daily reality.
Ask yourself honestly: are you more likely to trust a party that speaks directly into the spaces you inhabit, or one whose existence barely registers?
The third lesson is the most uncomfortable of all. Voters are drawn to leaders with clear, coherent principles – even when those principles are deeply flawed.
The brain is a prediction machine. It wants to know what comes next. Leaders who behave erratically feel unsafe, in the same way an unpredictable caregiver feels unsafe. Consistency, even toxic consistency, can be reassuring.
For all his many faults, Trump usually tells us what he intends to do. He may not deliver on everything, but his underlying themes – self-interest, deal-making, aggression – form a grimly coherent worldview.
The same was true of Thatcher. I profoundly disagree with the legacy of her policies: free-market fundamentalism, the privatisation of essential utilities, the sell-off of council housing, the weakening of workers’ rights. But she was crystal clear about what she believed was wrong with the country, and what she intended to do about it.
That clarity matters. And its absence is increasingly evident in our current politics.
Keir Starmer is not corrupt or cruel. We could have done worse. But his leadership lacks coherence. His government is pursuing policies that many voters never expected from Labour, and the gap between expectation and reality is corrosive.
Nothing illustrates this better than his reluctance to condemn Donald Trump’s aggressive attempt to seize control of Venezuela’s oil reserves. I struggle to understand how any government committed to the rule of law could equivocate in the face of such a blatant breach of international norms. Staying on the right side of Trump may feel tactically expedient, but it comes at the cost of moral credibility.
Which brings us to the real question: what does this government actually stand for?
Not its list of priorities, or its “missions”, or its retail offers. But its principles. Its story. Its sense of direction.
Liberals understand this better than anyone. People don’t just vote for policies; they vote for a vision of how power should be used, and where society is heading. Without that, politics becomes transactional, brittle, and ultimately untrustworthy.
If we want to rebuild trust in politics, we must stop pretending that competence alone is enough. Voters are asking a deeper question: who are you, what do you believe, and will you stand by your principles when the going gets tough?
The truth is uncomfortable but unavoidable: when mainstream politics fails to articulate a coherent vision, it creates a vacuum that others are only too happy to fill. If we want to defeat authoritarianism, populism and cynicism, we cannot do it with managerial competence alone.
Without that moral compass, politics drifts. When voters can see that compass at work, trust follows, and we have a chance to rebuild something stronger, more honest, and more resilient and hopeful than what we have now.
* Dr Roz Savage is the Liberal Democrat MP for the South Cotswolds.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Hywel
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
30 Comments
I love this post Roz, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Politics is not as logical as those of us who deeply indulge in it like to think (and sometimes party tribalism is its own kind of beautiful illogic). It’s not a contradiction for us to be simultaneously radically liberal and competently reassuring. Right now, competence could well be contextually radical.
“Without that moral compass, politics drifts. When voters can see that compass at work, trust follows”…
Best place to start is those 34 Libdem MPs publically apologising for adding their names to a letter demanding the government should do all it can for the realise of the now discredited Egyptian dissadent ….His tweets were truly horrific…
@Greg: Alaa Abd el-Fattah was imprisoned as a political prisoner – as far as we can tell, because he was campaigning for democracy and documenting instances of torture in prison. Whatever his views, those are not crimes anyone should be imprisoned for, so I don’t see why any MPs should apologise for calling for his release. Liberalism isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about selectively campaigning only for the rights of people we agree with!
Besides, awful as his tweets were, he has apologized for them. To my mind that should be sufficient to put the matter in the past (as long as he doesn’t do anything similar in the future).
I see Greg Hyde belongs to the never forgive never forget school of politics and quite possibly anyone who speaks out against the Israel government is an anti semite school as well.
At 75, I can now look back and see that things I said in my youth were not always acceptable or right. But as a UK citizen, I enjoy the right to speak out on most things, without being threatened with loss of citizenship.
As a Jew, by race and not religion, I reserve the right to criticise the government of Israel. If they are committing genocide then saying so does not make me anti semitic, it sets me in opposition to their government.
Our MPs have nothing to apologise for.
I once once voted for Margaret Thatcher, Roz, so we both have a shameful skeleton in the cupboard. It was May 1979 and the first election I was eligible to vote in, so I followed my parents in voting Blue. But I was in my first year at university (Hull) and starting to develop a healthy sense of scepticism about all things; plus I was mixing with students from all across the UK (but especially from the North & Scotland) from very different backgrounds to my own (East Midlands middle-class). So when Thatcher stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and gave her famous victory speech quoting from St. Francis of Assissi, I thought “I don’t believe this”, realised I’d made a terrible mistake, and have always voted Lib/SDP-Lib Alliance/Lib Dem since.
“I once voted for Margaret Thatcher………..When I cast that vote, I was young and foolish – and politically uninformed.”
Are we sure that votes for 16 year olds is really such a good idea? 🙂
For a start Mick – he sent those tweets in his late twenties & early thirties over a considerable number of years. Hardly some teenage angst holed up in his parents back bedroom. Secondly people in the UK have been jailed for sending similar vile posts – his numbered in the hundreds. Maybe people should read them to realize how disgusting there were.
“Keir Starmer is not corrupt or cruel. We could have done worse”….
The man is unashamedly corrupt….A wealthy man aleeady accepting gifts totally thousands . I worked at sme’s all my life – he would of been escorted off the premises with immediate effect if he acted in the same way. Seems like politicians get a exemption policy on stuff like that. Could of done worse indeed. His poll ratings make it incredible difficult to come back from. Labour and Starmer are detested by so many – I’ve never known such visceral hatred for a govt.
You hit the nail on the head. Great blog.
@ Greg,
The point to be made is that no-one should be threatened with loss of citizenship without the due process of law. Alaa Abd el-Fattah was a UK dissident as well as a Egyptian one.
If any UK citizen is being held in jail unreasonably in a foreign country, it is perfectly in order for anyone to campaign for their release, regardless of anything they may have done earlier when in the UK.
Upon their return to the UK, and if there is evidence of criminal activity, the CPS and the police have the power to test that in a court of law. If an offence is proven, the court can then impose an appropriate sentence.
The 34 LibDem MPs have nothing to apologise for.
Great article. People should read its carefully argued core message “we must stop pretending that competence alone is enough”. Ignore the irrelevant discussion as to whether or not Starmer’s peccadillos are serious enough to be termed corruption.
Starmer’s worst fault is, indeed, his pretence that competence alone is enough. How do the Lib Dems themselves measure up to the challenge of establishing a clear moral compass?
Seven out of ten, I’d say. On the plus side, the Lib Dems now have strong, clear “foreign policies” on Trump and on effective co-operation with the EU. On the minus side, too many of their “domestic policies” amount to kneejerk don’t-frighten-the-horses positioning of the “axe the tax” variety.
The Greens win votes because they recognise that Britain is in a mess. Nothing works. The NHS and the justice system are floundering. Austerity still rules. Radical change is needed. Sure, the Greens’ prescription is not as strong as their diagnosis. But at least the Greens show a “clear moral compass”. On the domestic front, the Lib Dems are failing to match the Greens.
Greg Hyde 10th Jan ’26 – 10:56am…..The man is unashamedly corrupt….A wealthy man aleeady accepting gifts totally thousands .
So, No LibDem MP accepts ‘freebies’ (tickets to sports events, theatre, dinners, etc..)
Expats; I did state politicians. To the extent at which Libdem MPs or any others acceptance of gifts I’m unsure of. What I’m pointing out is in the workplace at sme’s where I’ve worked it would be looked upon as corrupt – but as ever politicians seem to get a pass on accepting gifts despite a 90k salary and benefits most of us could only dream of ….Moral compass and politicians – isn’t words you see that often in an article….
I worked in the private sector with major contracts with private companies, the UK and foreign governments..
We entertained customers and were entertained…Back then it was deemed as having good personal relationships..
Expats; Starmer accepted over 100k in gifts ….I’m sure you’re company jollies didn’t amount to that much..Back then it might of been a few beers a meal & erotic dancer !
Considering his wealth already – you have to question Starmers morality in accepting those gratituitys
@David Allen
“How do the Lib Dems themselves measure up to the challenge of establishing a clear moral compass?”
What does “a clear moral compass” actually mean? Is it a code for “raise taxes and spend money” or does it mean something else, and if so what? Same goes for “Radical change is needed”.
Well said Roz. I never voted for Margaret although I admired much of what she did. You have nothing to apologise for her. The problem is the perception of her today (by Right and left) and the legacy of her policies which have become British political mainstream. I am just back from a day of canvassing and I think the country needs a realistic message of hope (or qualified hope). Voters are attracted to Reform by vague notions of change and oodles of hope – but get into a serious chat and many recognise that Reform have few policies and no track record of success. As a Lib Dem I want to be seen as “tough but fair” – being fair is not enough to tackle some of the real problems we have.
I agree with Roz, I have few clues what Starmer stands for, but as an exDPP one assumes that due process is part of it.
I think it’s absolutely right that we should have two things :
1 a statement of HOW we behave (ethically, evidence-based, fairly etc)
2 a GOAL we work towards (what our vision for society looks like)
We have much of both, of course. Given those, it should possible to deduce what we are likely to say or do about an awful lot of issues. But before we become too “holier than thou” let’s not forget the Marconi scandal or the cash-for-honours scandals which sullied the Liberal party name a century ago, or some of the more recent individual behaviours the party leadership of the time failed to either detect or call-out. Furthermore, let’s also remember that as we have not been part of the ping-pong of power between 2 big parties since then, we are less valuable a target for the corrupting influences of lobbying groups, whether their angle be the middle east, the environment, or ultraprocessed foods.
So when did Roz live in Finchley?
Well said Roz.
Peter: To my knowledge Adam Dance has publicly apologised – stating he would not have signed the letter if he’d known about those vile tweets. I’m sure that goes for most who put their name to it…As a ’cause celebre’ across the left – thankfully they’ll be a bit more careful what they sign in future. Thankfully we all know now what a toxic individual he is.
Reading the comments here reminded me of how self righteous and narrow minded Lib Dems can be. Margaret Thatcher may not have been everyone’s cup of tea but she was right about a lot of things. Standing up to the Soviet Union and their militant apologists in the NUM amongst others. Save your poisonous barbs for those who deserve it please.
Tristan Ward
You ask me what I meant by “Radical change is needed.” Well, the Tories left us with massive backlogs in the justice system, in NHS waiting lists, in asylum claims, to mention only some of the results of austerity. Starmer said Labour would rely on growth to sort all this out. Growth is not happening, nothing is being sorted out. Don’t you believe that radical change is needed? Or do you think the Lib Dems should settle for no change?
You ask me “What does “a clear moral compass” actually mean?” Well, that was Roz Savage’s phrase, but I suspect we both have a pretty clear idea of what she meant by it.
You ask “Is it a code for “raise taxes and spend money” or does it mean something else, and if so what?” Well, hidden inside that rather snarky phrasing are the elements of a fair question. My answer would be that if we want to rectify the Tories’ gross underinvestment in all the state activities that are now (expensively) failing, we need to find money from somewhere. Obviously! Then – Finding it by borrowing to invest, and/or by taxing those who can afford it, within the limits set by financial markets, sounds like a plan. What’s your plan?
@Greg Hyde
“To the extent at which Libdem MPs or any others acceptance of gifts I’m unsure of.”
If you took the trouble you could find out fron the register of interests of parliamentarians.
https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons/interests/publications
And for background info try https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/
Nonconform; ….Expats posed the question – bit I’m positive he’ll follow the links you’ve provided and get his answer. I was responding to what Roz said about Starmer not being corrupt …A £100,000 + worth of gifts the highest amount of any recent leader – one must question his moral judgement given his already wealth and with his salary and benefits that virtually most could only dream about ..
Hardly a free corporate pen diary or calendar..
Thanks for all the comments, which I read with interest.
Touche – I have never lived in Finchley. But like many Brits who aren’t paying a huge amount of attention, my lazy brain took the heuristic shortcut of voting for the candidate whose party had the leader who seemed the most prime-ministerial.
To clarify: by “moral compass” I mean coherence and predictability.
Of course, we’d prefer a party/leader who is using that compass to navigate towards the destination we want – but either way, we want them to be honest with the electorate about where they’re going That’s part of the reason that Starmer’s popularity is so low – voters thought they were getting change, and now feel that he deceived them.
Would I say that Trump has a moral compass? With his racism, sexism, belligerence and greed, it’s more of an “immoral compass”, but it is a compass nonetheless. In the strangest of ways, we more or less know where we are with him…. even if it’s nowhere good.
@David Allen
I asked what does having a “moral compass” actually means. You have produced some big picture policy ideas around taxation, borrowing and investment. Fair enough, but that’s not a moral compass – it’s policy.
I would go for something like “the Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to promote the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. ”
“No-one shall be enslaved by…..” has a fine ring to it.
@Roz Savage
“To clarify: by “moral compass” I mean coherence and predictability.”
Coherence and predictability are undoubtably good things but this does rather beg the questions:
“coherence around what?”
and
“on what do we base our predictability?
Tristan said:
“I asked what does having a “moral compass” actually means. You have produced some big picture policy ideas … but that’s not a moral compass – it’s policy.”
I’ll just point out that you also asked me “Is it a code for “raise taxes and spend money” or does it mean something else, and if so what?” Well, that’s a policy question, so I answered it by talking about policy…
Shall we perhaps just give this a rest now, please?
I agree about the importance of citizens’education. I fear successful politics depends on a dual track. First your public utterances that helps to give that feel of coherence and predictability that wins elections. Also, you quietly get on with implementing policies that coincide with your principles and are in the best interests of the country. When they collide you need political skill to navigate successfully.