We’re Liberals and we’re democrats. So we should be talking much more about Liberal and democratic values, in public: that’s what makes us distinctive, what drives us into politics – and what attracts new people to the party. When I first joined the party, everyone from Jo Grimond down talked about redefining liberalism and its implications for our society, our economy and our foreign policy. Now we are too shy about reaching beyond daily press releases and restating the principles on which our politics are based.
Others are not so shy. I’ve read defences of neo-liberalism in the Times and the Financial Times in the past two weeks, and no doubt the Telegraph, the Spectator and Unherd have offered similar thoughts. The case for shrinking the state, for contracting out public services to private companies (which may turn out to be owned by other states, which our free marketeers somehow seem to find acceptable), for loosening regulation of markets, continues to form the conventional wisdom of the British commentariat, and Labour has not yet found a way of redefining the central issues of relations between society, economy and state. Can we do better?
The preamble to our party constitution commits us ‘to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.’ The fundamental challenge for liberals is how to maintain such a balance in the face of rapid social and economic change, and against the background of international turmoil that threatens the liberal ideal of a peaceful world. Community was far easier to maintain when most people lived and died within a few miles of where they had been born, and most worked for employers similarly local. Liberty for the wealthy and educated has always been easier than for the marginal and poor. Equality is a worthy principle, but very difficult to reconcile with liberty and with a market economy, let alone to promote at a time of rapid technological change.; practical liberals talk more of equality of opportunity and of limits to inequality. Globalisation – the endpoint of the market economies and open borders that our Liberal predecessors worked to create – makes the preservation of stable communities and the prevention of a widening gulf between ultra-wealthy and struggling masses harder and harder to maintain. Globalization concentrates power in multinational companies and private equity, far from the concept of ‘responsible capitalism’ with which liberalism grew. Some liberals are now talking about wealth taxes; but that is only scratching the surface of the economic inequalities we face and will be well beyond the reach of American trillionaires and Russian oligarchs.
We also believe that ‘the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.’ Does that imply a smaller state for a liberal society, or a larger role for governmental activity (and financial redistribution) at local, regional, national and international levels? I believe that in current circumstances we need an active and well-funded state – a Keynesian state, as opposed to the minimalist version of von Hayek and Milton Friedman. But I’m not sure that as a party we have a coherent stance on this fundamental question, or a settled view about how public investment and public services should be organised, funded and held accountable.
Outside and alongside our party there’s a lively and informed debate about the tensions between democracy and capitalism, about the constraints on freedom necessitated by living in dense conurbations with mobile and diverse populations, on the social changes required to cope with our ageing populations and the implications of moving from conventional measurements of economic growth to sustainability. Dany Rodrik, Martin Wolf, Daron Acemoglu (whose new book, ‘What happened to Liberal Democracy?’, is published this month), Kate Pickett and many others are addressing broad questions like these. Think tanks in Britain and in other democracies are pouring out studies and reports. We appear to outsiders to be focusing on retail political topics rather than the relevance of our underlying approach to politics to current political dilemmas.
That damages us in terms of recruiting new members and activists and in capturing the attention of serious political commentators. Robert Shrimsley explained in the Financial Times two months ago that ‘I don’t write about the Lib Dems’ because he hears us addressing church roofs rather than political or economic reform. It’s true that other parties, from the Greens to Reform, have their own inconsistencies and contradictions; I read David Frost in the Telegraph the other week demanding a stronger defence of British sovereignty while also supporting free markets and a smaller state. But if we want to sway the public debate, to change the way governments approach the economy and social order and to transform the way we conduct our politics – as Ed Davey promised in the opening paragraphs of the 2024 manifesto – we need to articulate the distinctive Liberal Democrat approach, and why it is better than the angry populism of Restore, the small state nostalgia of the Conservatives and the romantic socialism of the Greens.
* 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
The Joy of Six 1569
Wyn Griffith and David Lloyd George
DNA Methylation Clocks - what utility do they have?
Farage channelling Trump again
Dunston fair
The UK must stand up to the orange faced man-child as strongly as Canada
paul barker
Hywel
Peter Davies
Steve Comer
David Allen
10 Comments
Yes we need to think through and articulate our Lib dem approach to economics and the way we order society. I see the occasional attempt at this on LDV but out in the public domain we are ignored. There are signs in local elections that more people are turning to us instead of Reform but I suspect that is because they are so opposed to Conservatives and Labour, don’t like the culture of Reform and see Greens as rather extreme and narrowminded; i.e. they use us as a protest vote perhaps, rather than knowing really what we stand for? This is also partly because we have an excellent record on local issues but hardly ever do our campaigns include where we stand on national issues. The consequence will be a lack of solid long term support; in my area for the last 26 years this seems to be the case, where local issues saw us rise really high but that has now dropped to virtually no significant support.
Having grown up in Communist Poland, I never take freedom for granted, which is why this piece strongly resonates. What drew me to the Lib Dems was not tactics but values: liberty, open markets, equality of opportunity – the things that made Britain feel full of promise when I arrived as an immigrant. If we said that loudly and often, I think we would be surprised how many voters, especially young ones, are listening for exactly that.
This article has taken the final nail off the coffin lid. It started at Michael Meadowcroft’s funeral last week, hearing his words repeated, his values restated, people there who had Liberal values embedded in them
well said William Wallace, and I don’t have much hope that those that need to read and listen will, but I ought to be standing alongside those who agree.
I am going to rejoin the Lib Dems this afternoon, not with high hopes, trying to avoid being so disappointed and angry at what is not being said and done, but in solidarity with those who hold and stand up for true Liberal values.
Well said, Suzanne. You speak for the many of us from the Liberal days who hold to the values that Michael did.
Welcome back, Suzanne Fletcher. I too was at Michael Meadowcroft’s funeral and was inspired by, among other things, Gordon Lishman’s quotation from part of Michael’s introduction to “When we speak of Freedom”:
” In renewing our politics, technique is not enough. We need the breathing space to ask ourselves why we strive, and, crucially, what we strive for. For Liberals, there is no greater intellectual mission. Freedom cannot thrive in a community obsessed with ‘means’. We need grand ends and compelling principles to make a better life and a better politics.”
William Wallace’s splendid article is in the same vein. Liberalism is in grave danger, in this country, in Europe and indeed the World, from populists and authoritarians funded by such as the tech bros, private equity and assorted billionaires whose object is to undermine true liberal democracy for their own ends.
I have long advocated that, especially in those semi-derelict areas where we field token candidates just to fly the flag, we should angle out literature to explain our liberalism and highlight how it is endangered in order not so much to attract votes now but to attract activists who recognise the dangers and are prepared to fight to preserve liberal democracy.
Those with the skill should study William’s article and prepare the templates for the necessary leaflets.
Thank you @peter wrigley.
I could not recall Gordon’s exact words of the quotation from Michael Meadowcroft, and can use them now.
you have written very eloquently after the quotation what I feel. thank you, and could I have permission to quote please?
about to press the button to pay, so will have by the time anyone reads this.
Excellent article and great comments. I too was inspired by Gordon Lishman’s words at Michael Meadowcroft’s very moving funeral service in Leeds. There are a number of areas where our values can and should shine through if only our leaders and spokespeople would talk more about them. They will influence some voters but, as other have said, they will inspire more people to join the Party. I am very frustrated by the Party leadership’s complacency about our membership. I recently heard one very senior person suggest it was ok because we were getting some new members to replace the lapsing ones. We badly need new active members willing to campaign and willing to stand for election.
@Suzanne Fletcher. Please feel free to quote whatever you wish. You might also find GordonLishman’s obituary for Michael in the latest Liberator a useful source.
So lots of us were at Michael Meadowcroft’s funeral service, but none of you have mentioned the splendid jazz band… I had dug out some of Michael’s pamphlets on Liberalism for the occasion.
thank you @Peter Wrigley, yes saw the Liberator article, and David Grace’s too.
@William Wallace, the jazz band – well words fail, I was in tears before we had even started! Just brilliant. I managed a very little video of them afterwards, just the right touch.