What should the Liberal Party do next?

What should the Liberal Party do next?
Having just re-read all their policies and such forth, I definitely believe there is a place for the Liberal Party in modern British politics. However I am not so sure that acting like the other parties will ever get them anywhere. It's my opinion that the Liberal Party ought to try to put forward sensible and well argued responses to what politicians, media and bloggers are talking and writing about. In this way they could attract serious attention from a very large portion of the political scene without once acting like the other parties. If they can get the bloggers talking about the Liberal Party then the party will attract a new following and eventually the mainstream media may also start talking about the Liberal Party.

That sounds sensible to me. I think that parties tend to have two distinct kinds of activist - though of course there is some overlap. There are the real-world activists who are focussed on community politics, canvassing, running display stands, handing out flyers etc, and there are the cyber activists. The real-world activists tend to be particularly interested in local issues and the cyber-activists more on national issues (I'm generalizing like mad, as you can tell). For such a small party, the Liberals have a surprising number of real-world activists, all very focused on the bread-and-butter problems facing their own local neighbourhoods. That is why the Liberals have a respectable number of local councillors and groups. However, the Liberals have been very weak when it comes to cyber-activists. This means slower, less reactive policy-making at national level, and also a lack of ability to bring those policies to the attention of bloggers and the media. They have a good set of policies built up gradually over several years, but they are updated only slowly. I don't know ANY local Liberals in my area of south London, so I'm much more attracted by getting involved with the cyber side of things.

Exactly the same here in Gloucester. I've always been more of a cyber-activist, though.

I think that parties tend to have two distinct kinds of activist - though of course there is some overlap. There are the real-world activists who are focussed on community politics, canvassing, running display stands, handing out flyers etc, and there are the cyber activists. The real-world activists tend to be particularly interested in local issues and the cyber-activists more on national issues (I'm generalizing like mad, as you can tell). That's my impression. However I am not so sure that acting like the other parties will ever get them anywhere. It's my opinion that the Liberal Party ought to try to put forward sensible and well argued responses to what politicians, media and bloggers are talking and writing about. In this way they could attract serious attention from a very large portion of the political scene without once acting like the other parties. If they can get the bloggers talking about the Liberal Party then the party will attract a new following and eventually the mainstream media may also start talking about the Liberal Party. Sorry to be negative, but that's exactly what other parties try to do. Take the Lib Dems, the party that the continuing Liberals seem to define themselves against (if you want to change your party's fortunes, try moving it to a more constructive agenda than being a protest against another party). They put forward sensible and well-argued responses to the problems of the day (and others). And few listen. I don't like being so negative, but what chance do the continuing Liberals, who are a fraction of the size, have? It may be true that many people do not know who Nick Clegg is. It's almost certainly true that most people don't even know there is a continuing Liberal Party. I was only dimly aware of it (I'd visited the site once or twice) until encountered TomWilde on LDYS. I feel I've been awfully negative, so here's a few constructive ideas: 1. Get rid of the obsession with the Liberal Democrats. The press are more than capable of criticising us and (frankly - no offence intended) are better at it. People listen to them (unfortunately). 2. Get party figures/activists/whoever to write to newspapers. Initially it'd be "Letters to the Editor". If you really try you might find an editor willing to let the party write an article. (Vince Cable has written for The Financial Times.) The thing I'd most like to see from the continuing Liberals is a liberal agenda rather than their present semi-socialist one. Renationalisation isn't particularly liberal. Neither are the protectionist agricultural policies. I could go on but I don't think I need to. I'm being negative again. Sorry. I tried to put something positive in.

It is regrettable that you see us as defining ourselves by continual reference to the 'Lib'Dems, however, we are continually asked (both individually as candidated and collectively as a party) how we differ from the LibDems. The website contains an quick guide to the differences and points out that we are not the LibDems so there can be no confusion. As to our policy agenda; firstly it is presented positively and without reference to th LibDems, there are even some areas of broad agreement. it clearly is a liberal agenda, although (insofar as sucha definition remains relevant) we are broadly a party of the left. I suspect to LibDems, who have relentlessly pursued Social Democracy, it appears semi-socialist. The areas in which we are in favour of renationalisation were reduced at the 2006 Assembly, in those remaining areas we favour renationalisation on practical grounds rather than socialist principle. For example rail privatisation has clearly failed. The resuslts are a complicated, confused and chaotic rail industry. The railways now need the sort of co-ordination that can only be achieved by a single organisation and the sort of investment that can come from government. As to 'protectionist' agricultural policies, whilst these have been the subject of intense debate in the party, we remain resolutely opposed to the largest engine of protectionism - the EU and the CAP in particular.

firstly it is presented positively and without reference to th LibDems, there are even some areas of broad agreement. Indeed there are. it clearly is a liberal agenda, although (insofar as sucha definition remains relevant) we are broadly a party of the left. I suspect to LibDems, who have relentlessly pursued Social Democracy, it appears semi-socialist. You have obviously not been watching Nick Clegg very carefully! But I do not accept that we have followed a social democrat agenda. Inevitably there have been some influences, but equally the Liberal Party pre-merger was continually influenced by various things. I have Young Liberal songbooks containing such liberal masterpieces as "The Internationale" and "The Red Flag" to prove it! :D Also, whatever happened to Michael Meadowcroft? He contributed to the most recent edition of Liberal Democrat News (I have not yet read his thoughts, however). The areas in which we are in favour of renationalisation were reduced at the 2006 Assembly, in those remaining areas we favour renationalisation on practical grounds rather than socialist principle. For example rail privatisation has clearly failed. The resuslts are a complicated, confused and chaotic rail industry. The railways now need the sort of co-ordination that can only be achieved by a single organisation and the sort of investment that can come from government. Great - though the website is still somewhat misleading. Rail privatisation was a good idea and it could have worked. The way it was implemented was masterfully bad, however. As to 'protectionist' agricultural policies, whilst these have been the subject of intense debate in the party, we remain resolutely opposed to the largest engine of protectionism - the EU and the CAP in particular. As a Lib Dem I oppose the CAP (as a protectionist measure) but support the EU (which, let's not forget, operates a huge free-trade area and is beginning to end external tariffs in some cases).

Well there you go. Clearly this website is not here to continually justify the libdems policies and strategy.

Well there you go. Clearly this website is not here to continually justify the libdems policies and strategy. Well, not this thread, anyway!

Hi liberalpolicy, and welcome to the forum. It is regrettable that you see us as defining ourselves by continual reference to the 'Lib'Dems, however, we are continually asked (both individually as candidated and collectively as a party) how we differ from the LibDems. The website contains an quick guide to the differences and points out that we are not the LibDems so there can be no confusion. I agree with both Appis and liberalpolicy! (Sorry). I agree with Appius that it would be better if the Liberal Party was promoted on its own merits and not mainly on its differences from the LibDems. However, I think the current focus on the LibDems on the website etc is unavoidable, for exactly the reason given by liberalpolicy. Both the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats appeal to people who are basically liberal-minded, and share the liberal enthusiasm for personal freedom and tolerance. However, the Liberal Democrats are plainly much more widely known at present than the Liberal Party, and sadly it is completely true that outside a few small pockets of Britain most people don't even know the Liberal Party as such still exists. Therefore the first thing a liberal-minded person is going to say when stumbling across the Liberal Party website is "Yes, I agree with all this stuff about freedom and opportunity, but why the heck should I support you rather than the LibDems when the latter are much larger and have a much better chance of being elected?" Therefore of course the Liberal Party website has to try to answer that question. The important thing is to also convey why liberalism matters, and why our policies are good policies, rather than just coming across as the Not The LibDem Party.

Re: What should the Liberal Party do next?
Having just re-read all their policies and such forth, I definitely believe there is a place for the Liberal Party in modern British politics. However I am not so sure that acting like the other parties will ever get them anywhere. On reflection, I think that the likely success of a party comes down not only to its approach to campaigning but also to the role it plays in the country's political dialogue. Successful parties nearly always offer some combination of policies which is popular and unique. What attracted me to the Liberal Party is its combination of liberalism and moderate euroscepticism. It is currently the only UK party offering that combination. This could be its great opportunity, as many traditionally liberal voters are also eurosceptical, despite the LibDem leadership's apparently unquenchable enthusiasm for the EU. So one way forward for the Liberal Party would be to stress that combination. With such a potentially popular policy combination it needn't have huge financial resources or a stunningly original approach to promoting itself - just persistence and moderately effective campaigning and the occasional bit of luck.

Re: What should the Liberal Party do next?
despite the LibDem leadership's apparently unquenchable enthusiasm for the EU Don't count on it.

Do you know something about this that we don't? :) I would personally be absolutely delighted if the LibDems adopted the kind of policies towards the EU currently held by the Liberal Party.

Do you know something about this that we don't? :) I would personally be absolutely delighted if the LibDems adopted the kind of policies towards the EU currently held by the Liberal Party. Oh no. Not that sort of policy. The sort of view you'll be hearing a lot more about (assuming we can get the media attention) is the constructive criticism one - "we can make this work if...".

Oh no. Not that sort of policy. The sort of view you'll be hearing a lot more about (assuming we can get the media attention) is the constructive criticism one - "we can make this work if...". What, as in "we can make this work if we don't have to have a referendum on it"? :(

What, as in "we can make this work if we don't have to have a referendum on it"? :( You've been reading too many hostile websites. Ming Campbell stood up in front of Conference and declared his support for a referendum on the European Union itself. Reason: we pledged support for a referendum on the Constitution, which completely rebuilt the EU from the ground up. This was designed to be a vote on not just the new reforms but on all the other reforms (Maastrict, Nice, etc.) which have not had referenda. The Treaty of Lisbon does not do this - it just amends previous treaties. The closest we can get is a referendum on the whole thing which, let's face it, is what the europhobes really want anyway. Why bother voting on a reforming treaty which, let's face it, the EU can't operate without when instead we can vote on the EU as amended by it. My read on the Tories, for what it's worth, is that they're not supporting the Lib Dems in this because they know it'd split their party. Many Tories still remember why they took us in in the first place. At least with this treaty they can agree on a referendum on the basis of things like manifesto commitments.

View Full Version: What should the Liberal Party do next?