In the last week, I've been to my first two Liberal Democrat meetings. I've got a very young family, and a wife who is an NHS Consultant working irregular hours, so I was simply unable to get out and do the endless deliveries, the door knocking and the phone-banking many others did during the election campaign, so to be honest I feel a bit of a fraud. But, I did manage to get out to my two constituency meetings over the last weekend. I consider myself to be part of two constituencies, because my house is about 200 metres from the border between the two, and I live in one and work in the other, so I decided to look in on both, to see what I would find, and what I can offer.
One was in a community centre hall, and we were crammed in a small room, with tea and biscuits and listening to short talks from the established members about what they do, the set up of the party, and we were all asked to share why we got involved. Probably 40% of the people there were new, and I was amazed at the level of eloquence, and real-world skills people had. The new members included a biochemist, a communications professional, several IT specialists and me, a teacher. The conversation was buzzing, it was clear people had a purpose and a passion and want to bring this to the Liberal Democrats. We are already talking about meeting up to come up with ways of engaging with the local community using social media, putting together a 'plan' on how to do this beyond the traditional Focus leaflets, and to utilise people's skills and making the most of the time available to contribute. In an area which is run as an almost Tory fiefdom (they hold 80% of the seats on the council) this will be an uphill task, but one to relish and look forward to connecting with voters to share with them our Liberal values and ideas for improving their community. The established members have done a great job; and share many talents, skills and passions. I'm particularly looking forward to getting to know them, learning from their experiences and helping to reinvigorate the Liberal Democrat brand in that constituency.
The second meeting was a pub get together, and I went alone. I think I am a fairly confident guy, but it's a fairly big deal for me to walk into a bar full of almost complete strangers and make myself known. I tried to avoid latching on like a limpet to those I'd previously met once or twice; but invariably ended up chatting to one or two of the same people. I find 'I follow you on Twitter' to be a fairly acceptable ice-breaker in these situations. What was great about this meeting was how much people wanted to talk about politics. There was no attempt to introduce new members, so 'are you new?' was a good opener, and managed to find a few other new members. Again, people seemed sharp, switched on and have much to offer in terms of skills. The only downside was the 'micro brewed' beer was rubbish! I'll definitely go again, but I'd love the chance to engage with some of those people outside this environment, as they begin to think about campaigning again.
So I began the week feeling excited and optimistic about my new Liberal Democrat involvement, and then I woke up yesterday to the news about Charles Kennedy. What the reaction to his death has shown me, as he did in life, were that within this party there are so many decent people who simply want to create a happier, fairer, more just society. This was what Charles gave his life to. I loved what he said, shared by many. 'I jump on injustice, not bandwagons' surely a comment woven into the fabric of every Liberal. On polling day in 2005, my Mum- whom I'd not really thought of as political phoned me after seeing Charles on TV and said 'If there's any justice in the world the Liberals will walk it.' I asked her why and she said 'I can't see why anyone would not want to vote for Charles Kennedy.'
In summary, this week has shown me that the Liberal Democrats have so much to be optimistic, and thankful for. The thoroughly decent, heart-wrenching tributes from Tim Farron and Norman Lamb surely show how much this party can connect with the thousands of struggling, cynical, dissatisfied and frustrated voters by demonstrating that here are decent, honest and visionary politicians whom they can trust, respect and support- like so many did for Charles. Tim Farron moved me to tears in his tribute, addressing Charles's son today. He must have found it so hard to deliver such an uplifiting, yet deeply moving tribute as the shock of Charles's loss is just sinking in. Here we have someone who is a once in a generation talent- a gifted communicator with the ability to connect with people in a deep way, as well as a Liberal visionary. I am so excited to think that with Tim as leader, and harnessing the talents and passions of the thousands of members who are willing to play a full part, that we can look forward to a very bright future for Liberalism, and in doing so create a fitting legacy for Charles Kennedy. It's a very sad, but very exciting time to be a Liberal Democrat.
Wednesday 3 June 2015
Wednesday 27 May 2015
An idea all Lib Dems can (hopefully) agree on...
I've just been involved in an interesting twitter conversation about the new members' leadership hustings between Tim Farron and Norman Lamb, held this evening (27th of May). I would have loved to have gone, but given it was only for those who joined after May 7th I may not have been allowed, despite only joining in March! It's such a good idea to hold events especially for new members- the idea of the Lib Dems being like a 'startup' was mentioned, I think, by Norman Lamb- as far as I can tell anyway from following Peter Sigrist's excellent live-tweeting of the event. The issue of note was the role of the state, given Tim Farron's comment, again reported by Peter, that 'a small state equals weak citizens'. A lot of people seemed a bit concerned by this comment. As for me, I just wanted clarification- what was the context, what did Tim actually mean by that? Surely he doesn't believe the larger the state the better, and if he does, how is that Liberal? I then started thinking about whether Tim and Norman had any issues about which they significantly disagreed, and were prepared to say so publicly. I think it's important that they do, so that before we decide for whom to vote, we can be crystal clear about the direction either candidate will take the party, and how they can build the Liberal identity and win votes, seats, and influence. In any case, thinking about these potential areas of disagreement between Norman and Tim, I was wondering what we can all agree on; in short why we are Liberal Democrats. Other people may have others, but this is my idea:
Liberalism means empowering all individuals, whatever the necessary means to do so.
The first part is easy. Yes, sure, we all agree with that. It's not hard to disagree, in fact opposing this statement reveals fairly obvious vested interests. You don't want all individuals to be empowered, because you think empowering some will interfere with your own comfort zone. If this is because by giving poorer people better life-chances or the chance to organise, or breaking down the barriers that prevent them from accessing the benefits you enjoy, they will upset the social structure you take for granted and benefit you, then you're a conservative. If you think that by resenting those whom through ability, talent and effort have become wealthy, or even those who have done so by nothing more than good luck, then society will be better off, then you're a socialist.
The difficulty comes in the second part- whatever it takes. This is where liberals really diverge from the Tories, and the socialists. This is what Tim Farron means, I think, when he says Liberalism is neither left, nor right, but it is a radical vision all on its own. Liberalism is radical because I think most of us realise- in fact it's why many of us are indeed Lib Dems, that to achieve empowerment we have to make radical changes to the way our country is governed, to its institutions, to our relationships with the rest of the world, and in fact no less than a radical change to our political culture and the way citizens engage with, think about, and 'do' politics. I don't think either Tim or Norman need to be shy about this: The House of Lords needs to be replaced; we need a codified, federal, constitution for the UK with regional government. We need a reformed voting system. Our schools need to teach democratic values and the importance of the peaceful resolution of conflict.We need to set up a national 'peace corps' for young people to be involved in their communities with a qualification equivalent to 2 good GCSEs. There needs to be a huge, unparalleled and historic investment in our schools and universities- new school buildings, more good teachers- especially in STEM subjects- and most importantly we need a National Early Years Service, aimed at closing the undisputed gap in attainment between the poorest children, and their 'middle class' counterparts that opens up by the age of 5, and increases over time, which would entitle, and expect, all 3-5 year olds to be given the nurturing and support that will enable them to achieve their own potential. I think we need to be clear in saying that as Lib Dems we are not content to orderly manage our society as it is, we want to radically change it so that our whole nation, its structures and culture is aimed at unlocking the potential of its citizens and celebrating their talents.
It won't do to say 'a big state is a good state' because our state, right now, is pretty rubbish. Nor will it do to use that favourite quote of the young Tory 'the government that governs best is that which governs least' because that won't work either. We need a government which is, to paraphrase Lincoln, is owned by the people because it is made up of those same people, so that it works in the interests of those people and those like them. It's wrong and harmful to make the claim that either government is good, or it is bad; It is how that government is run, and in whose interests it operates, and the underlying values that underpin it that matter. That's why having a constitution that is written down in one place would be great. Let's not waste time talking about 'British values' let's write them down on our defining national document. These values won't be 'British' because as any intelligent person knows it's daft to claim any values as belonging to a geographic landmass or to one group of people- these values will be human, kind, tolerant, open and enabling. They will be liberal values, the values of this party, and the first task that either Tim or Norman will have as leader is to share these values, shout them from the rooftops, and persuade right thinking, decent, fair minded people that they are their values too, and so win their support.
Liberalism is radical or it is pointless. There are many other ways in which Liberals would overturn the status quo, and change our society for the better, many of which would make those on both the left and the right distinctly uncomfortable, and rightly so. So my hope for both Norman and Tim is that they avoid talking about being 'left' or 'centre' or whatever, but make it clear that the Lib Dems are a party that has a unique set of ideas, and a vision for how to apply them.
That's all for now. I remind readers I am a fairly new member so I am by no means an expert, just one of many with ideas.
Liberalism means empowering all individuals, whatever the necessary means to do so.
The first part is easy. Yes, sure, we all agree with that. It's not hard to disagree, in fact opposing this statement reveals fairly obvious vested interests. You don't want all individuals to be empowered, because you think empowering some will interfere with your own comfort zone. If this is because by giving poorer people better life-chances or the chance to organise, or breaking down the barriers that prevent them from accessing the benefits you enjoy, they will upset the social structure you take for granted and benefit you, then you're a conservative. If you think that by resenting those whom through ability, talent and effort have become wealthy, or even those who have done so by nothing more than good luck, then society will be better off, then you're a socialist.
The difficulty comes in the second part- whatever it takes. This is where liberals really diverge from the Tories, and the socialists. This is what Tim Farron means, I think, when he says Liberalism is neither left, nor right, but it is a radical vision all on its own. Liberalism is radical because I think most of us realise- in fact it's why many of us are indeed Lib Dems, that to achieve empowerment we have to make radical changes to the way our country is governed, to its institutions, to our relationships with the rest of the world, and in fact no less than a radical change to our political culture and the way citizens engage with, think about, and 'do' politics. I don't think either Tim or Norman need to be shy about this: The House of Lords needs to be replaced; we need a codified, federal, constitution for the UK with regional government. We need a reformed voting system. Our schools need to teach democratic values and the importance of the peaceful resolution of conflict.We need to set up a national 'peace corps' for young people to be involved in their communities with a qualification equivalent to 2 good GCSEs. There needs to be a huge, unparalleled and historic investment in our schools and universities- new school buildings, more good teachers- especially in STEM subjects- and most importantly we need a National Early Years Service, aimed at closing the undisputed gap in attainment between the poorest children, and their 'middle class' counterparts that opens up by the age of 5, and increases over time, which would entitle, and expect, all 3-5 year olds to be given the nurturing and support that will enable them to achieve their own potential. I think we need to be clear in saying that as Lib Dems we are not content to orderly manage our society as it is, we want to radically change it so that our whole nation, its structures and culture is aimed at unlocking the potential of its citizens and celebrating their talents.
It won't do to say 'a big state is a good state' because our state, right now, is pretty rubbish. Nor will it do to use that favourite quote of the young Tory 'the government that governs best is that which governs least' because that won't work either. We need a government which is, to paraphrase Lincoln, is owned by the people because it is made up of those same people, so that it works in the interests of those people and those like them. It's wrong and harmful to make the claim that either government is good, or it is bad; It is how that government is run, and in whose interests it operates, and the underlying values that underpin it that matter. That's why having a constitution that is written down in one place would be great. Let's not waste time talking about 'British values' let's write them down on our defining national document. These values won't be 'British' because as any intelligent person knows it's daft to claim any values as belonging to a geographic landmass or to one group of people- these values will be human, kind, tolerant, open and enabling. They will be liberal values, the values of this party, and the first task that either Tim or Norman will have as leader is to share these values, shout them from the rooftops, and persuade right thinking, decent, fair minded people that they are their values too, and so win their support.
Liberalism is radical or it is pointless. There are many other ways in which Liberals would overturn the status quo, and change our society for the better, many of which would make those on both the left and the right distinctly uncomfortable, and rightly so. So my hope for both Norman and Tim is that they avoid talking about being 'left' or 'centre' or whatever, but make it clear that the Lib Dems are a party that has a unique set of ideas, and a vision for how to apply them.
That's all for now. I remind readers I am a fairly new member so I am by no means an expert, just one of many with ideas.
Wednesday 20 May 2015
Looking into a Liberal's soul
There's been a lot of talk about what the Liberal Democrats need to do to 'come back'. I might glibly argue that merely 'coming back' isn't good enough, that the party ought to aim to do even better than ever before, but at the moment that seems a long way off. Many commentators are talking about 'what needs to be done', and those from outside the party are either writing us off as an irrelevance or gloating about the 'death of Liberal Britain.' I agree wholeheartedly with Tim Farron, who said we have 'no right' to come back, or to be taken seriously, but that we will have to work, and fight, for every vote. I think the reason Labour did so badly in Scotland was that they thought they had every right, a sense of entitlement, to electoral support. The need to define what makes the Liberal Democrats unique is, to me, obvious and urgent. But this is harder than it sounds; for every time we try to define a 'liberal value' it's like trying to hold on to water, the harder we try the more it slips through our fingers. The attitudes to diversity, equality and faith are perhaps the most contentious issues. Tim Farron spoke about these when he was interviewed by 'Pink News' today (May 20th, 2015) which can be found here:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/20/interview-tim-farron-addresses-anti-gay-voting-record-and-calls-for-church-of-england-to-be-disestablished/
Tim Farron is a Christian, as am I. He and I come from very similar Christian traditions. I have an enormous amount of respect for the way he balances his faith and politics, about how his faith influences his liberalism, and how he is prepared to stand up and talk about this. I must say I support Tim for leader, not just because he's a Christian, but because of his values- and his ability to communicate the message, and I think that's the most important thing at the moment, rather than whether someone has a slightly different view on some policies.
I'm incredibly encouraged by the way Tim is clear, unashamed, and passionate in his views. He's not a politician who is being interviewed by a magazine, which will be read by many who are instinctively opposed to his faith position, who tries to adapt his beliefs to be liked. He just says 'yes, I'm a Christian, but this is what it means with regard to the issues you care about.' He answers the questions specifically and directly. As well, he argues how it's 'un-Christian' to respond in an unloving, discriminatory way towards people. He suggests the cause of Christianity would be strengthened by dis-establishing the Church of England, a position I strongly support. I may disagree with some of the things he said, I am not sure about the 'spousal veto' for Trans people simply because I don't know enough about it; the same with the reasons why people enter into arrangements for Surrogacy. I have instincts and 'gut feelings' but one of the reasons I am a Liberal is that I will say to these 'hold on' and investigate the issue, look at evidence and find out about how these things affect real people before making up my mind. I would imagine Tim would agree on that, and perhaps one of the reasons people might criticise him for not voting the way they may have wanted him to was because he was, and is, going through this process.
Liberals, and Christians, agree on one thing: That each person is uniquely valuable, and it is from this perspective we come to our conclusions on these matters. It is to preserve and amplify the dignity, worthiness, and potential of each individual. I love what the Liberal Democrat constitution says about not being constrained by conformity. To me, this means we have to accept that we will disagree about these things. I would strongly challenge any Liberal who said we must all agree on these 'matters of conscience' such as assisted dying, abortion in certain circumstances, or the rights of bakers not to bake a cake iced with slogans that opposed their beliefs. I think it's also a fully reasonable position for a liberal politician to personally disagree with one of these issues but vote for, and argue for legislation, that provided equality for those who didn't share their religious faith or that evidence shows will work better to achieve a positive outcome. For example, many Christians may argue against compulsory sex education in schools but if study after study shows that this results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, therefore fewer abortions, then can any reasonable, or indeed Christian, political leader argue 'no, we won't have this, even if this leads to a worse outcome for society?' Yet many do. This is another reason why we need a Liberal Democrat party to argue for evidence based, constructive policy. If you value people, believe we are all valuable, unique and created (or exist) to maximise each person's talent and potential and in so doing live their lives to the full then many of these details should take care of themselves.
I don't think we should just be 'tolerant', we should go beyond tolerance, to follow the commands of Christ to 'love your neighbour as yourself' this means accepting, respecting, celebrating and helping each and every unique individual to make the most of his or her time on this planet. This is why I am a Liberal, and I suspect it may well be a big part of why Tim Farron is a Liberal too.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/20/interview-tim-farron-addresses-anti-gay-voting-record-and-calls-for-church-of-england-to-be-disestablished/
Tim Farron is a Christian, as am I. He and I come from very similar Christian traditions. I have an enormous amount of respect for the way he balances his faith and politics, about how his faith influences his liberalism, and how he is prepared to stand up and talk about this. I must say I support Tim for leader, not just because he's a Christian, but because of his values- and his ability to communicate the message, and I think that's the most important thing at the moment, rather than whether someone has a slightly different view on some policies.
I'm incredibly encouraged by the way Tim is clear, unashamed, and passionate in his views. He's not a politician who is being interviewed by a magazine, which will be read by many who are instinctively opposed to his faith position, who tries to adapt his beliefs to be liked. He just says 'yes, I'm a Christian, but this is what it means with regard to the issues you care about.' He answers the questions specifically and directly. As well, he argues how it's 'un-Christian' to respond in an unloving, discriminatory way towards people. He suggests the cause of Christianity would be strengthened by dis-establishing the Church of England, a position I strongly support. I may disagree with some of the things he said, I am not sure about the 'spousal veto' for Trans people simply because I don't know enough about it; the same with the reasons why people enter into arrangements for Surrogacy. I have instincts and 'gut feelings' but one of the reasons I am a Liberal is that I will say to these 'hold on' and investigate the issue, look at evidence and find out about how these things affect real people before making up my mind. I would imagine Tim would agree on that, and perhaps one of the reasons people might criticise him for not voting the way they may have wanted him to was because he was, and is, going through this process.
Liberals, and Christians, agree on one thing: That each person is uniquely valuable, and it is from this perspective we come to our conclusions on these matters. It is to preserve and amplify the dignity, worthiness, and potential of each individual. I love what the Liberal Democrat constitution says about not being constrained by conformity. To me, this means we have to accept that we will disagree about these things. I would strongly challenge any Liberal who said we must all agree on these 'matters of conscience' such as assisted dying, abortion in certain circumstances, or the rights of bakers not to bake a cake iced with slogans that opposed their beliefs. I think it's also a fully reasonable position for a liberal politician to personally disagree with one of these issues but vote for, and argue for legislation, that provided equality for those who didn't share their religious faith or that evidence shows will work better to achieve a positive outcome. For example, many Christians may argue against compulsory sex education in schools but if study after study shows that this results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, therefore fewer abortions, then can any reasonable, or indeed Christian, political leader argue 'no, we won't have this, even if this leads to a worse outcome for society?' Yet many do. This is another reason why we need a Liberal Democrat party to argue for evidence based, constructive policy. If you value people, believe we are all valuable, unique and created (or exist) to maximise each person's talent and potential and in so doing live their lives to the full then many of these details should take care of themselves.
I don't think we should just be 'tolerant', we should go beyond tolerance, to follow the commands of Christ to 'love your neighbour as yourself' this means accepting, respecting, celebrating and helping each and every unique individual to make the most of his or her time on this planet. This is why I am a Liberal, and I suspect it may well be a big part of why Tim Farron is a Liberal too.
Friday 15 May 2015
The SNP effect- reflections and renewal.
I've only been a member of the Liberal Democrats since March. I joined the party after trying to make up my mind whom to support after probably four years or so of deliberation; I was interviewed by the Guardian in December in which I said I would 'probably vote Labour' mainly because I dearly wanted to be able to vote for someone, however indirectly, who would potentially end up as PM. John Harris, during the interview said several times: 'you sound like a Liberal Democrat' 'so why don't you vote Lib Dem?' The answer was probably the same as why so many people didn't vote for the Lib Dems last week- although I was happy with the party's core values and policies I actually felt they'd done a pretty shocking job in taming the Tories- in particular allowing policies like the Bedroom Tax to go through- as well as their broken promise on Tuition Fees. While I liked Nick Clegg a lot, I felt he was a far too mild influence to David Cameron, making claims that good coalition policies were his, and the more nasty ones were the Tories, which had absolutely no traction. The clue is in the term 'coalition'- both parties should take the share of the responsibility for both. Yes policies like the pupil premium, higher tax allowance, apprenticeships, mental health provision etc etc were great, but equally the division the Tories had created in society happened because the Lib Dems propped them up. I agree it was the right thing to go into coalition, but only because the alternative was a spent, discredited and chaotic government, so it was necessary, but we can be forgiven for not jumping for joy with enthusiasm about that decision.
I changed my mind as the election approached because I realised that I had to decide whether to support a party that promoted values with which I agree; or vote for one 'holding my nose' which I absolutely disagreed with on so many things, and for a leader- Ed Miliband- who I felt was simply incompetent. I watched Nick Clegg's 2014 conference speech, looked into the Lib Dem influence on the government and realised it was far more significant than I had ever thought possible. Yet most voters clearly stopped thinking about the Liberal Democrats long before this; and those who wanted to vote for a Prime Minister ended up voting Tory, for Cameron, because the alternative was so ridiculous.
I don't claim to be an expert- but the reason I think the Lib Dems did so badly, lie mainly in the SNP surge in Scotland and the reaction of English voters. The main reasons can be broken down into Stability, Nationalism and (broken) Promises- all three of which the SNP party's rise made worse for the Lib Dems.
1. People voted for Stability. Not least because the Tories, and yes, the Lib Dems told them to. 'There's a real chance Ed Miliband will be propped up by the SNP so vote for us to prevent this.' said the Tories. 'There's a real chance Ed will be propped up by the SNP, so vote for us so we will prop him up instead.' said the Lib Dems. So what did people do, especially in Lib Dem seats? They voted Tory. I think people in England were genuinely worried about this, especially with the polls saying it was neck and neck, and voted Tory. I would guess (having thought like this only a few months ago) people though that a vote for the Lib Dems would make a Miliband/SNP 'deal' (or whatever may have happened) more likely. I actually think a stronger Labour leader would have benefitted the Lib Dems, signs that Labour may have got a sound majority would have led some in the South West, for example, to vote Lib Dem for their preferred 'local' popular MP.
2. Nationalism in Scotland, and as a side-effect, in England, meant that the Lib Dems' sensible, outward looking views on Europe and immigration were sidelined and seen as irrelevant at best, and idealistic and naive at worst. Being part of the coalition really hurt the party in Scotland. Scottish voters saw the Lib Dems as 'part of the Westminster elite' and indistinguishable from the Tories. This started more or less straight after the formation of the coalition, but reached its peak after the 2014 referendum. Never mind how hard working, talented and effective MPs like Jo Swinson and Charles Kennedy were, it didn't matter. In England the effect of 'petty nationalism' meant more voters looked rightward, and chose the Tories over the Lib Dems as a reaction to what they perceived to be the loss of 'English' rights as promoted by people like John Redwood.
3. Finally broken Promises doomed the Liberal Democrats. The obvious one is tuition fees, many others have written it was daft for Clegg to so publicly promise to abolish them; this clearly led many to say 'I can never trust the Lib Dems again.' In fact a colleague of mine made me realise the depth to which this has harmed the party, He had always voted Lib Dem, and for the first time in 2015 he didn't, because they broke this promise, and 'integrity was always what the Liberals claimed to be unique about them.' Also the promises made to the people of Scotland by David Cameron for more powers, and the fact he said that the government needed to sort out English votes first, meant the Lib Dems were once again seen as indistinguishable from the Tories.
So on to renewal? I think we need to do two or three things in the short term. Firstly, elect a leader who can communicate the Liberal Democrat message in a clear, forceful and persuasive way. One who opposes the government at every turn, who has flair, can maximise the publicity of the party and is able to make alliances with other like minded MPs. For me, that person is Tim Farron.
Secondly, we need to position ourselves wisely. In my view it is as vocal, passionate opponents of the Conservatives. The Tories are in government, and we are now an opposition party- so we need to oppose them. They've only been in power a week and given the Lib Dems several open goals, the Human Rights Act, Cameron's ridiculous- and scary- claim that obeying the law isn't enough to avoid state interference- and their repeated intention to have an in/out EU referendum. We need to campaign for this to be held quickly, and lead the winning case to stay in. Labour, being Labour, will carry on their petty infighting, take an eon to elect their leader and inflict many open wounds on themselves in doing so. In the meantime the Lib Dems can come out fighting, and attract back those whose trust we lost, and win new supporters.
Thirdly, we need to 'carry lightly' some of our principles and policies. Rightly or wrongly, the Lib Dems are seen as a bit 'eccentric' endlessly debating issues affecting only a small number of people, or advocating a bit too loudly some ideas which go against the majority of society's views. Sometimes we get this right- like the campaign on equal marriage- but sometimes we can seem very out of touch. The new leader needs to show an ability to 'rein in' some of this tendency, and focus clearly on what matters- preserving the Union, staying in the EU, opposing the Tories and developing a clear Liberal vision for our economy, our environment and our society.
I changed my mind as the election approached because I realised that I had to decide whether to support a party that promoted values with which I agree; or vote for one 'holding my nose' which I absolutely disagreed with on so many things, and for a leader- Ed Miliband- who I felt was simply incompetent. I watched Nick Clegg's 2014 conference speech, looked into the Lib Dem influence on the government and realised it was far more significant than I had ever thought possible. Yet most voters clearly stopped thinking about the Liberal Democrats long before this; and those who wanted to vote for a Prime Minister ended up voting Tory, for Cameron, because the alternative was so ridiculous.
I don't claim to be an expert- but the reason I think the Lib Dems did so badly, lie mainly in the SNP surge in Scotland and the reaction of English voters. The main reasons can be broken down into Stability, Nationalism and (broken) Promises- all three of which the SNP party's rise made worse for the Lib Dems.
1. People voted for Stability. Not least because the Tories, and yes, the Lib Dems told them to. 'There's a real chance Ed Miliband will be propped up by the SNP so vote for us to prevent this.' said the Tories. 'There's a real chance Ed will be propped up by the SNP, so vote for us so we will prop him up instead.' said the Lib Dems. So what did people do, especially in Lib Dem seats? They voted Tory. I think people in England were genuinely worried about this, especially with the polls saying it was neck and neck, and voted Tory. I would guess (having thought like this only a few months ago) people though that a vote for the Lib Dems would make a Miliband/SNP 'deal' (or whatever may have happened) more likely. I actually think a stronger Labour leader would have benefitted the Lib Dems, signs that Labour may have got a sound majority would have led some in the South West, for example, to vote Lib Dem for their preferred 'local' popular MP.
2. Nationalism in Scotland, and as a side-effect, in England, meant that the Lib Dems' sensible, outward looking views on Europe and immigration were sidelined and seen as irrelevant at best, and idealistic and naive at worst. Being part of the coalition really hurt the party in Scotland. Scottish voters saw the Lib Dems as 'part of the Westminster elite' and indistinguishable from the Tories. This started more or less straight after the formation of the coalition, but reached its peak after the 2014 referendum. Never mind how hard working, talented and effective MPs like Jo Swinson and Charles Kennedy were, it didn't matter. In England the effect of 'petty nationalism' meant more voters looked rightward, and chose the Tories over the Lib Dems as a reaction to what they perceived to be the loss of 'English' rights as promoted by people like John Redwood.
3. Finally broken Promises doomed the Liberal Democrats. The obvious one is tuition fees, many others have written it was daft for Clegg to so publicly promise to abolish them; this clearly led many to say 'I can never trust the Lib Dems again.' In fact a colleague of mine made me realise the depth to which this has harmed the party, He had always voted Lib Dem, and for the first time in 2015 he didn't, because they broke this promise, and 'integrity was always what the Liberals claimed to be unique about them.' Also the promises made to the people of Scotland by David Cameron for more powers, and the fact he said that the government needed to sort out English votes first, meant the Lib Dems were once again seen as indistinguishable from the Tories.
So on to renewal? I think we need to do two or three things in the short term. Firstly, elect a leader who can communicate the Liberal Democrat message in a clear, forceful and persuasive way. One who opposes the government at every turn, who has flair, can maximise the publicity of the party and is able to make alliances with other like minded MPs. For me, that person is Tim Farron.
Secondly, we need to position ourselves wisely. In my view it is as vocal, passionate opponents of the Conservatives. The Tories are in government, and we are now an opposition party- so we need to oppose them. They've only been in power a week and given the Lib Dems several open goals, the Human Rights Act, Cameron's ridiculous- and scary- claim that obeying the law isn't enough to avoid state interference- and their repeated intention to have an in/out EU referendum. We need to campaign for this to be held quickly, and lead the winning case to stay in. Labour, being Labour, will carry on their petty infighting, take an eon to elect their leader and inflict many open wounds on themselves in doing so. In the meantime the Lib Dems can come out fighting, and attract back those whose trust we lost, and win new supporters.
Thirdly, we need to 'carry lightly' some of our principles and policies. Rightly or wrongly, the Lib Dems are seen as a bit 'eccentric' endlessly debating issues affecting only a small number of people, or advocating a bit too loudly some ideas which go against the majority of society's views. Sometimes we get this right- like the campaign on equal marriage- but sometimes we can seem very out of touch. The new leader needs to show an ability to 'rein in' some of this tendency, and focus clearly on what matters- preserving the Union, staying in the EU, opposing the Tories and developing a clear Liberal vision for our economy, our environment and our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)