The Liberal Party I joined in 1960 was far better at thinking than campaigning. The party leader, Jo Grimond, published several books, with radical proposals ranging from co-ownership to joining the ‘Common Market’ and cancelling the independent deterrent. There were multiple policy groups, several academically-led bodies like the ‘Unservile State Group’ that published their own lengthy analyses, and a Liberal Summer School. We weren’t much good at campaigning, but we prided ourselves on being ‘the party of ideas’.
Young Liberals in the 1960s also loved debating policy, but after the setbacks of the 1964 and 1966 elections were critical of the amateurish approach to campaigning. Community politics proved itself from local successes, and rising generations of Liberal campaigners learned how to win, one ward and one seat after another, through pounding the pavements and taking up local issues. Several decades later, the 2024 election showed what we can achieve through targeted campaigning. But facing an electorate that is more and more sceptical of all politicians, we risk being seen as nice, friendly but hard to define in political terms. The Labour government is now being criticised for having no overall message to underpin its policies. We are in danger of attracting similar criticism.
So we need to spend more time thinking, making political discussion and informed proposals complement continued campaigning. Party policy-making runs through an unavoidable cycle between elections: immediate exhaustion after each election, with new MPs, Councillors and members finding their feet and defining their roles; sufficient experience and time in the second and third years to try out new ideas and shape them into attractive and practical policies; greater caution about floating new ideas as the next election approaches, as party strategists boil down policy packages into messages and manifesto and guard against hostile publicity exploiting any half-prepared idea that is floated.
We need to be particularly attentive during this political cycle for two reasons: first, that the most likely outcome of the 2028-9 election is that no party wins an overall majority (unless, horror of horrors, Reform sweeps in), and that we find ourselves as a potential partner in whatever government is formed; second, that the economic and international situation which that new government faces will be at least as grim as it is today. Many Liberal Democrats will groan at the suggestion that we might once again go into government, particularly if we were not the senior partner. But we could not refuse to negotiate if the outcome is unclear, and if – for example – we find ourselves with 100 MPs or more in a 3-party negotiation (an entirely possible scenario) we will be in a much stronger position than in 2010, provided we have prepared carefully and have agreed priorities.
Labour and the Tories benefit from well-funded think tanks to shape new ideas into potential policies – and Reform is raising funds for their own agenda-setting outfit. We haven’t the financial backing to benefit from such associated research teams. But we can draw on the work of the many bodies that critically examine policy issues, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies to the New Economics Foundation to the Tax Justice Network, as well as the many academically-based policy institutes – many of whose staff are sympathetic to our political approach. And we have many expert members on whom to call for advice, if only our parliamentarians and associated organisations can find the time and staff assistance to bring them together. The Social Liberal Forum’s conference in July was a valuable effort in convening interested party members on broad policy themes; we need more of that, from more initiatives, over the next year.
September’s conference offers the best opportunity this year to define what we stand for as a party. Meeting the day after President Trump’s state visit, I hope that Ed Davey and others will set out the threats to open society, sustainable economic development and the rule of law represented by Trump and Farage’s pluto-populism, and the liberal values that we in contrast represent. But beyond that there’s a lot of detailed work to be done in translating principles into political proposals: on the balance between free speech, privacy and respect for diverse opinions and life-styles in an internet world, on the active role of state action in limiting inequality and widening opportunity, on coping with the challenges of our ageing society, on rebuilding public trust in our political institutions and on managing our economy in a more hostile international world. The policy paper we will discuss at conference sets out ‘the challenges we face’ and many of the dilemmas we must try to resolve. There’s a lot of thinking our party needs to do within the next two years.
* 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
How four bison brought new life to ancient woodland in Kent
How many councillors has Reform UK lost since the May 2026 elections?
Peter Hirst
18 Comments
Ideas and policy used to form a major part of both my Young Liberal Branch and my local party. Pre internet, we circulated ideas for new policy by post and discussed them at real meetings, not on zoom (which of course didn’t exist pre-pandemic).
I feel a lot has been lost since the advent of email and on-line discussion and it would doubtless be good if we could instigate much more in-person discussions at all levels of the party. Of course, these might also involve going to the pub…
“We risk being seen as nice, friendly but hard to define in political terms”.
I really don’t sense that the party hierarchy have recognised this problem. A number of us have commented on LDV over the past couple of years that the LDs lack definition in the eyes of the electorate. We generate policies, often it seems to merely ape the agenda’s created by our opponents.
Do we tell the electorate what a Liberal society would embrace? Policies, important as they are, should surely be recognised as a medium for creating the type of society we crave. But policies are not a philosophy – yet we very seldom distinguish between the two. Go out on the street and ask people what Liberal means.
Consequently, we undersell ourselves. People don’t know what we are, be they right or be they wrong!
Contrast this with “Reform”. Let’s face it that’s a great marketing name – many people can attribute whatever they like to it because they perceive that “everything” needs to be changed in order to satisfy their personal grievances. It’s glib and it’s there.
Why are we so shy to define ourselves and the type of society we would wish to encourage?
Completely agree on the need for well thought out policies & consistent ideas backing them up. Leveraging the work of non aligned think tanks like the IFS makes sense – though I’d baulk at the Loony Tunes Tax Justice (sic) Network. A far better, (& economically literature) alternative is Tax Policy Associates – even though Dan Neidle is a Labour member, his analysis is avowedly non partisan & he advises all parties and none.
I like to think of myself as supporting a party that aims to form the next government.
Perhaps we should start out with the assumption that we are seeking power and take it from there. It will do the party an awful lot of good and force us to focus, for instance, on how to win in many parts of the country which seem to be unreachable at the moment. That would indeed mean engaging in the battle of ideas as William points out, especially at this stage in the current parliament.
We have a realistic possibility of ending up as the official opposition or in a givernment coalition after the next election if we do this. We may lack the policy developing think tanks but as William also points out there is much expertise in our membership in many areas. I note this particularly in the two areas with which I chiefly occupy my time – Europe and the Middle East. There is much support for us among specialists in those two fields, and I know they would tell us we could be much bolder.
Coalition, hey? “Never again” said so many Lib Dems. But then Reform came along…
What if Reform can be kept where they belong – Out of government – only if Labour, the Lib Dems, “Your Party”, and maybe even the Tories, could all come together?
We live in interesting times…
Can we revive the co-ownership policy please?
The problem we face as Lib Dems is not a shortage of policies, we have dozens. They usually are very worthy, but invariably long, massively dull and have little appeal to most voters. However, even worse is that while while they are often a long read, they are nowhere near as long as a completed piece of legislation.
Just consider Labour’s Renters’ Rights Bill – on page 79 of their manifesto, they said “We will immediately abolish Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions.”
Still not done after nearly 14 months.
Legislation is hard work, hugely time consuming and by the time it is implemented, nowhere near as effective or popular as governments hoped it would be.
However, even more difficult to cope with is the fact that the vast majority of government is not implementing policies through passing legislation through the HoC, but in implementing executive decisions. These are quick, easy, but totally in the hands of the minister. Think George Osborne’s Pensioners Bonds giveaway in March 2015 early messages sent out in Eastbourne, Lewes and Watford – pre election bribe sorted. Then think change Winter Fuel Payment, alter disability benefits (or not) or proscribe Plasticine Action – that went well.
Lots of opportunities for making an impact good or bad, but so many overall there is no chance of ‘prepared carefully and have agreed priorities’.
Thank you for the highly relevant question, William. I think my main answer is, we are aiming for a Liberal society, and therefore are campaigning for Liberalism. This was excellently explored in last week’s three-day Summer School organised by the John Stuart Mill Institute and the Social Liberal Forum, for virtual attendance on Zoom. Michael Meadowcroft started it off wonderfully, I thought, with his lecture: he said he had been speaking about the importance of Liberalism for 66 years, and it is about human values: the economy works for us, but we put our philosophy first.
> Party policy-making runs through an unavoidable cycle between elections: immediate exhaustion after each election … (but, Labour and the Tories benefit from well-funded think tanks to shape new ideas into potential policies…)
WHY should we have a policy cycle based on the Westminster electoral cycle? The Big Two are said to use external policy bodies to hold enduring policy proposals.
If all we wanted was shallow rooted sets of policy papers for the next campaign, that would suffice. But are we wanting to play a role in future government? Then we should have enduring policy development, based on our principles and the facts out there. That should be capable of transformation into FCC, Conference, councils, devolved administrations, and Westminster.
If our core (non-detailed) policies are enduring, then some of the policy operation is not a hasty series operation but can proceed in series-parallel and at different speeds.
So where are the bottlenecks? We have the membership, elected officials, allied and supporting think tanks, policy working groups, and potentially ad-hoc experts. Is the plumbing wrong?
Policy has not been the problem .What matters is are we considered to be a party of substance . Next time we will not get away with our leader clowning around . Liberal Democracy faces a real challenge from populism and we will need a leadership that reflects the underlying values of our country.
What, indeed, are we campaigning for ? My generation, the boomers, have failed entirely. Perhaps society is less racist, sexist and homophobic than it was in the 1950’s. Perhaps. But we have Trump in the White House, Reform topping the polls (well, some polls) in the UK, the far right and Nationalism on the march in many European countries. Authoritarian attitudes seem on the rise, we are no more liberal, and no more democratic than when I first started getting involved in politics. We have failed to put power into the hands of the ordinary citizen, preferring to keep it within the political elites. Against this slow disintegration of everything we hoped for, for our society, for our world, we are supposed to celebrate the fact that we now control the Royston Vasey District Council ?
Thats a 783 word piece. But it doesn’t actually say anything beyond the rather obvious ‘we should probably have some policies’ so I’m not sure what William is actually trying to articulate here.
“Legislation is hard work, hugely time consuming and by the time it is implemented, nowhere near as effective or popular as governments hoped it would be.”
This is not true though. Parliament can legislate speedily when it wants to – the most exceptional case being the recent steel act. But the assistance to Ukraine act and rail public ownership acts were also passed pretty speedily.
But you are generally right that not all government actions need legislation. I appreciate this is not the best of examples but raising tuition fees in 2010 didn’t need a new act of Parliament. So a look at what liberal measures can be introduced without primary legislation or even secondary legislation needing an affirmative vote would be a good start.
As an example Vince Cable banned the export of drugs to be used in US executions (eventually at least – he initially rejected the idea possibly after having bad/overly conservative advice)
Presidential candidate Prue Bray tells us a true thing when she says. “We ARE the cavalry!’ With the mirage of Farage, the uselessness now of the Conservatives, the failings of the Labour government and the limitations of the Greens and the nationalist parties, it is the Liberal Democrats who can cite 150 years of service to the British people by Liberals and show how we can indeed now be trusted to ride to the rescue.
Well said, William, and thanks for driving this home. However, it’s not shortage of policies (although the historic Liberal Party of the 1960s and 1970s actually had more detailed, and more challenging, policies than the Liberal Democrats; I used to sit on one of those policy groups myself) but the overall philosophy and the resulting tying together of policy threads which needs to be clarified for the public. But we must realise that most potential voters don’t want to read about and evaluate policy differences between the various parties, certainly not outside the last couple of weeks of a general election campaign, and when they do give any attention to it, it won’t be through published policy documents, which we must appreciate as (necessarily) tedious for most people not immersed daily in politics, but through the picture which the media shows, with its inevitable spin and bias. And that means coming up with challenging, radical proposals and concepts, not middle-of-the-road platitudes which are chosen because they are ‘comfortable’ to hear and also because they reinforce the stereotype of a middle-of-the-road, pro-stability party which it the image that most of the media hold of the Liberal Democrats. Frankly, that means we are going to have to upset some people who are terrified of controversy.
@ David Evans: “Legislation is hard work, hugely time consuming and by the time it is implemented, nowhere near as effective or popular as governments hoped it would be…. the fact that the vast majority of government is not implementing policies through passing legislation through the HoC, but in implementing executive decisions”.
This is what the Liberal Lord Hewart identified as long ago as 1929 as “The New Despotism” – take the power away from Parliament and give it to Ministers and their advisers. And (as I found when I wrote a book on Hewart a couple of years ago) the trend has got much worse in recent years. But it doesn’t have to be that way. The Irish constitution expressly forbids this practice of passing skeleton acts and leaving it to Ministers to fill in the details.
We’ve lost the willingness to keep it simple. Those (like Johnson and Farage) who try to reduce everything to three-word sound-bits aren’t entirely wrong.
Look at the agenda of any of our conferences – pages of immensely detailed policies as if we were attempting to draft legislation. Who apart from those in our own ranks who love this stuff ever reads one word of this ?
We need brief bold statements of what we are really about – including extracts from our constitution which we all know but the public don’t.
We also need to take risks. We will not please everyone but as by-election results show there is a great appetite for our progressive and anti-extermist message. Only we are absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the Trump/Farage selfish and narrow message. Whatever we do we must not compromise on that.
Yes, delivering the revolution from the seat of power is always difficult. It should, however, be possible to prepare legislation in advance of coming to power by drafting it with the help of the parliamentary authorities. For example, a bill to immediately introduce STV in all parliamentary elections in the UK and local elections in England, including PCCs and Mayors and the London Assembly. We will, in any event, need such a bill as it must be a precondition of entering any form of coalition that this change is introduced. You get the idea!
While agreeing it is important to have detailed policy, it can also act as a millstone. We should remain committed to articulating broad principles and values that pass the test of time. If our policies clearly derive from these principles it is easier to adjust them according to changing circumstances and public sentiment. Often policies are a result of tilting a balance between opposed values that has deviated too much in one direction. By educating the electorate along these lines it will be easier to defend shifts in policy.