The betting odds on the outcome of the EU Referendum are comforting. And the polls so far are not too bad. But once you are out of London, and on the doorstep, it doesn’t feel good. The messages that feed back, picked up from social media and the subtle messages that the Leave campaign are putting out, show how many people have picked up their portrayal of the EU as draining both our sovereignty and our budget. Their latest political broadcast played heavily on the idea that the NHS will get worse if we stay in, and will benefit from extra funds and fewer patients if we leave.
Not all Liberal Democrat party members feel passionate about Europe. For many, local issues and local campaigning is more important – and more directly relevant to those whose votes we are seeking. The ALDC has fixed a full-day conference the weekend before the Referendum to discuss local campaigning, which will I imagine include a session on how to combat the appeal of UKIP at the local level. But local and international issues do not exist in separate compartments: concerns about immigration and diversity, competition for housing, schools and jobs (and hospital admissions), bridge the two. UKIP, and some local Tories, play skilfully on fears of change and mistrust of incomers, to our disadvantage.
So far, the campaign has been disheartening from both sides. The people we met on the doorstep in Yorkshire last weekend, and around street stalls in earlier weekends, are confused by the claims and counter-claims thrown around; many say they are still looking for ‘more reliable information’, probably in vain. Social media is spreading negative messages about the millions of Turks who might flood in in coming years, about TTIP and the NHS (we were surprised to hear that link made on doorsteps in Shipley), about the tyranny of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels ‘whom we can’t throw out’. The Leave campaign has the advantage in terms of simple soundbites.The Remain campaign has to make reasoned argument that take longer to get across, so far failing to find an impassioned tone about international cooperation and loving our neighbours. And the sight of a bunch of Old Etonians arguing over who’s part of the Establishment and who is not is dispiriting for all of us.
Look carefully at the brains behind the Leave campaign. Matthew Elliott ran the Taxpayers Alliance before he took leave to run the wickedly negative and successful No2AV referendum campaign. He and those around him want to shrink the state (including the ability to raise local revenues), and let ‘the free market’ thrive. Michael Gove is the closest in ideology to American neo-conservatism in the Conservative leadership: his romantic view of British identity and exceptional history combine with a determination to reduce public accountability in English schools. Boris Johnson, in contrast, appears to have no deeper convictions than Donald Trump, but a similar overweening ambition. Eurosceptic Tories, and UKIPpers, are right-wing nationalists who care little about social cohesion or inequality, let alone about international cooperation or loner-term issues like climate change.
The polls are OK, at present. But they were predicting a hung parliament before last year’s election, and we ended up with a Conservative majority and a Liberal Democrat rout. A victory for the Leave campaign would empower the irrational Right, and demoralise moderates in all parties – as well as environmentalists, campaigners for social justice and for progressive taxation. Many on the left, as the Guardian letter columns indicate, think that we wouldn’t be that much worse off (or further from their Socialist utopia) outside the EU than staying in; but rational Liberals should recognise that in an imperfect world we are far better off working with our neighbours than retreating into the mutual mistrust of nationalism, and that a vote to Leave would shift British politics sharply further Right.
The Remain campaign so far has been flat-footed and male-dominated. The Leave campaign’s messages have been nastier, but more skilfully presented. None of us should take the turn-out on June 23rd, or the outcome, for granted. Do any of us want to see the Eurosceptic Right take over the Conservative Party, and an invigorated UKIP building its strength in the 2017 local elections? If we want to prevent that happening, we need to be out there on the doorstep, and arguing on the bus, in the pub and the shop, from now until June 23rd.
* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Al Carns portrays Labour politics as a form of ancestor worship
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
Chloe
David Allen
Jana
theakes
Tristan Ward
23 Comments
William…………………, As you would expect, I am inclined to vote remain. However I heard when listening to the Commons Scottish Select Committee that the European Court has stopped the Scottish Government’s plan to introduce minimum pricing of alcohol. As you may know consumption of alcohol in Scotland is 20% higher than the rest of the UK.
I have an interest to declare. Five years ago next week I underwent a liver transplant in Edinburgh for reasons not connected in any way with alcohol. During that experience I witnessed things amongst alcohol related patients which convinced me of the necessity to introduce minimum pricing (a policy position shared by Willie – and, I believe, the Scottish Lib Dem Conference).
I realise this is not a single issue referendum, but I would welcome your response to what – for me – has become a critical issue in determining my vote.
Since when has standing up for democracy been deemed as “right wing”?
Were Tony Benn and Bob Crowe right wing?
“longer-term issues like climate change” ?? this is urgent now, 51 Centigrade in India
Greens have votes
WG; Tony Benn supported FPTP. Was Bob Crowe a democrat?
FPTP is no more flawed than PR systems that permit voter rejects being elected on lists compiled by party elites and who you then can’t get rid of. It’s just that at this point in our party history FPTP doesn’t suit our interests. Nevertheless it has prevented a Tory – UKIP coalition and given us a fighting chance in this referendum so I’m a convert.
As to how to make sure we win it, I would say stop shooting ourselves in the foot with ludicrous and counterproductive claims, and focus on the strong economic benefits, the double border (outer EU and inner UK), the control we have over non-EU migration, no benefits without contributions, and how we’re going to start applying for a lot more EU funds to build dozens of new hospitals, new roads, flood prevention measures, and green energy initiatives to make fracking go away. If we apply for enough grants we might even become net gainers from the budget. For this has been an issue with successive governments… failing to claim all the money back to which we are entitled.
The minimum alcohol pricing initiative was always going to fail against competition rules. There’s a much better way of doing it by imposing graduated excise duties that achieve the same result while preserving price differentials essential to competition. No reason Scotland couldn’t negotiate this with the Treasury. This did not have to be an issue with the EU imposing rules we don’t like but someone wanted the fight rather than using some intelligence.
@ Stephen Rose “someone wanted the fight rather than using some intelligence”.
I suggest you follow this link and give that throw away line a bit more thought :
[PDF]Model-based appraisal of minimum pricing – University of Sheffield
https://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1…/file/scotlandupdatejan2012.pdf
University of Sheffield – Alcohol Minimum Price Modelling Research: Second Update. 1. MODEL-BASED APPRAISAL OF ALCOHOL. MINIMUM PRICING AND ..
Stevan Rose, could I suggest looking beyond closed list PR before condemning “PR systems” as no more flawed than FPTP. Both STV and Open List PR put the power in the hands of individual voters to choose the individuals they want.
Transferable Votes have been decisively rejected in a democratic referendum that we lost. We need to move on. I don’t condemn PR systems I just point out that all systems have their undemocratic flaws. Open List has produced the mess that is government in Brazil. Not a good advert.
“give that throw away line a bit more thought”
It wasn’t a throwaway line. From the moment it was mentioned it was patently obvious it would fall foul of competition law and be thrown out if it reached the courts. Those involved, or their advisors, must have known that but went ahead anyway with the certainty it would be challenged. There were perfectly valid ways of achieving the same result without any risk of it being overturned in court. Since the Treasury have agreed to separate direct tax rates for Scotland it is highly unlikely they would reject a variable alcohol excise duty. If they did the blame for the policy failure would lie with the Treasury not with a European Court upholding existing laws with a ruling that should have been anticipated. I’m surprised that no government in the UK has simply not banned white cider, a product that has no connection to actual cider.
Don’t get me wrong, some alcohol is way too cheap. But there is a surefire way of achieving a minimum price based on strength and volume that yields a revenue you can ringfence for rehab initiatives, or you can pick an unwinnable fight in the European Court. I know which one I’d pick.
Alan Beith MP proposed open list PR. Home Secretary Jack Straw said he would consult (presumably Blair).
Leavers have adopted the Nike swoosh, admitting that leaving the EU would involve the UK in a short term recession (as the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has forecast – two consecutive quarters of negative growth, technically a recession).
They then forecast an upswing, but are unable to explain how or why.
Stevan Rose –
FPTP is not representative democracy, full stop; and I at least would like to live in one.
There are of course flaws in all systems, and I don’t like closed-list PR – though its lack of choice flaw is over-egged; after all you don’t get any within-party choice under FPTP.
What was rejected in 2011 was NOT PR, but AV, which our leader himself had described as a miserable compromise; I nearly left the party when it became clear that he was happy to accept this as ticking the box marked “electoral reform” in coalition negotiations.
And finally, Brazil is a ludicrous comparison: I strongly recommend reading Perry Anderson’s recent article before drawing any further comparisons with that sadly undemocratic country.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n08/perry-anderson/crisis-in-brazil
I don’t know if the cloistered oak panels of that ‘Other Place’ give off some resin, whose odour renders its occupants with a hypnotic self credence,… but for sure, whenever an article pops up from one of our most venerated Lords or Ladies, I always sense a detached ‘other-worldliness’ to its content. That said,.. I suppose it’s just possible that the residents of Shipley and I are simply too ‘bottom third’ to understand an elitist EU scam when we see one?
The Canadian government was elected FPTP but is moving to PR.
The question of whether the EU is democratic always comes up, and there is much talk about the bureaucrats of Brussels. But the European Commission is the civil service of the EU and its size is about 30,000 dealing with 28 countries where Edinburgh City Council for instance is about 18,000. Leicester is about 14,000. The commission does not decide policy. The councils of ministers decide, the ministers being members of democratically elected governments, and also the European Parliament, which is directly elected.
Stevan: Single Transferable Vote was not rejected in a referendum. It wasn’t on offer. On offer was a second choice system, which is very different. Yes, all systems have weaknesses, but STV combines accountability to the local voters for all MPs with manageable constituencies and no party lists.
As for the arguments on the referendum, the LEAVE one I hear too often repeated is that we have no democratic control over the people making decisions in Europe. We elect representatives, same as for Westminster. Bureaucrats ultimately do what they’re told unless elected politicians are ineffective. And while it’s true that decisions are largely taken by people we don’t elect, that’s true in Westminster too: I elect one MP and have no say in the election of the 600+ others.
We DO have STV in significant parts of the UK, in the N Ireland Assembly, and in Scottish local elections. And we have Additional Member for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. All these systems are better than FPTP, and all are better than closed list PR, and all seem popular with the voters. In the AV referendum voters voted for the devil they knew in the face of a No campaign full of lies and calumnies.. Like others here I could work up no enthusiasm for AV which was so transparently on offer from Nick Clegg to improve Liberal Democrat prospects in particular. If people actually experienced STV in England, for example in local elections, they would almost certainly like it.. That is what Liberal Democrats should be campaigning for now..
My view is that STV was in fact the main reason for the Damascene conversions of Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams to peace in N Ireland. When voters saw that they could express a preference for peace campaigners without breaking tribal loyalties, the politicians had to respond
Simon Banks –
My vote has never helped elect an MP, and probably never will (well, lets be careful, I grew up in Sheffield Hallam and never imagined a Liberal might be elected there! So perhaps there is even hope for Dewsbury, where I now live!). But it has helped elect an MEP, although not last time… That is perhaps why I see Europe as more democratic than the UK
On the topic of the article, I agree with William Wallace, here in West Yorkshire people are going to vote to leave.. People I have talked to are worried about immigration, mostly, and confused and bored by the economic claims.
I think the strongest emotional argument I can find is that young people overwhelmingly want to Remain. If we could get that message into the minds of parents and grandparents, I think it would sway the vote. “Ask your children and grandchildren what they want” would be the message I would put in every leaflet, speech and broadcast from now on
There has been a stampede to Leave. We vannot stop it and drag it back, that is The Labour Party, hopefully they are getting their act together.
Where is Tim Farron? Either he is not campaigning in the referendum or (more likely) he is just not getting any coverage. If the latter is true this is disgraceful. Every day on BBC news we see the smirking figure of Farage, but never any Lib Dems. We need Tim to put over the idealistic reasons for Remain to get the young out to vote. Otherwise we will be sleepwalking into Brexit. Watching BBC news is now like watching bigot’s corner.
Actually I hope that the EU protects one a bit from this present government – not enough!
When Leave talks about deregulation I am sure the regulations they want to remove are those for instance that protect workers. And think what the big bang did for banks. Will Leave want to remove whatever regulation has now been brought in for them again?
@David Singerman – there was a useful bit of data a couple of days ago about “coverage per organization, party etc on television and print media” but unfortunately I can’t lay my hands on the link.
The numbers for the Liberal Democrats were simple: the LDs got 0% of TV coverage (rounded down, presumably) versus 46% for Conservative. On the upside the LDs made it to1% of print media coverage.
Paul Murray, is this the link you are referring to?
https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/media-coverage-eu-referendum-report-1/
@Peter Parson – yes, that is it. Thanks for the link. It makes very interesting reading.