What should the Liberal Party do next?

Hi Tom, I've always been curious about what you lot get up to. Up until now the Liberal Party for me has just been a name on a web site or a ballot paper. It's good to hear from an actual party member about what motivates them to get involved etc. Sorry to disappoint you, but you still haven't heard from an 'actual party member'! I would join, but the publishing company I work for discourages employees from joining political parties in an attempt to preserve a reputation for political evenhandedness. Actually, it isn't as batty as it sounds, but it is a little frustrating at times. So instead of being an actual party member I am just an increasingly enthusiastic supporter, and a very recent one at that. I heard about the Liberals a few years ago but only really started supporting them about four months ago. Incidentally, I don't think this is a bizarre time at all to suggest a merger. We've just elected an exciting new leader, are moving up in the polls and look to be embarking on a glorious new chapter in the history of British liberalism. I'd like you to be a part of it. We too have an exciting new(ish) leader, we're attracting new members, we're moving up the polls (as I'm sure you could check, if you had a strong enough magnifying glass) and genuinely I think we might be embarking on a new chapter of Liberal history ourselves. I think a party's prospects come down not just to its bank balance or to the number of activists it can muster, but also to the role it can play in the national conversation. There is a huge gap for a party which represents eurosceptical liberals, and I rather hope that (with Michael Meadowcroft having departed) that's the direction the Liberal Party might now take. However, it is a bit early to say for sure. People who choose to join this party rather than the LibDems do so for a range of reasons, not just concern about the EU, and the important thing is to keep the party together and build for the future.

policy differences
It doesn't appear to be the Liberals on this site who are obsessed with the LibDems but rather LibDem members waisting time attempting to justify themselves and their social democrat party. For the record there are numerous real policy differences between the parties other than Europe, but at present Europe is a major issue and so has possibly become the focus of the differences. To deal with the EU and the Lisbon Treaty. The LibDems have betrayed their election promise and no amount of undergraduate semantic cleverness will alter that. To say you will not support a referendum on the treaty because you want a referendum on membership of the EU as a whole is ludicrous. It is like voting against a minimum wage because you want it to be £35 and not £7.50. The LibDems propose to let Labour off the hook and deny the British people their say into the bargain. They cannot even use the 'parliamentary democracy' excuse - a referendum was a manifesto promise. The only people in the whole of the EU who have the nerve to suggest that the constitution and the treaty differ in any material way are Labour and Lib Dem MP's (and even some Labour MP's haven't got such a brass neck!). We in the Liberal Party will continue to campaign for a referendum because we trust the people. I hope LibDems can live with their betrayal of the electorate. I do not believe the electorate will be so forgiving. The difficulty for LibDems is that they have invested so much intellectual capital in the EU that they dare not critcise it no matter how illiberal it becomes. As to other policy differences:- Have a look at our policies on taxation - real reforms not just tinkering to keep middle England happy. We remain committed to Land Value Taxation (former colleagues in the LibDems may remember that). We remain commited to unilateral disarmament and would not renew trident - ever. We are opposed to the Government's 'pathfinder' demolition scheme. In Liverpool hundreds have had their houses removed from them by compulsory purchase order - by a LibDem Council! What happened to a right to Liberty, PROPERTY and security. LibDems dropped that from their consititution for some social democratic claptrap. What is in any sense 'Liberal' about the mass compulsory purchase of property? In Liverpool the 'LibDem' Council has been complicit in taking a Victorian park off the people of city (to whom it was left) and giving (and I do mean giving) it to a football club and some carpetbagging American businessmen. Thats 'Liberal' Democracy in action! If you are a LibDem then fine. But don't pretend to be a 'Liberal' just because you think you can win more votes by dressing social democracy in those clothes. The reason the LibDems pay so much attention to us (out of all proportion to our size and any threat we might present) is that we are an embarassment and remind some of our former colleagues what they gave up - their liberalism.

Re: policy differences
It doesn't appear to be the Liberals on this site who are obsessed with the LibDems but rather LibDem members waisting time attempting to justify themselves and their social democrat party. I would hope that you could rise above that sort of attack, especially considering it would be more applicable in reverse. For the record there are numerous real policy differences between the parties other than Europe, but at present Europe is a major issue and so has possibly become the focus of the differences. Europe is, indeed a major issue. Quite why a relatively minor (though necesary) reforming treaty is getting so much attention I do not know. To deal with the EU and the Lisbon Treaty. The LibDems have betrayed their election promise and no amount of undergraduate semantic cleverness will alter that. To say you will not support a referendum on the treaty because you want a referendum on membership of the EU as a whole is ludicrous. It is like voting against a minimum wage because you want it to be £35 and not £7.50. The LibDems propose to let Labour off the hook and deny the British people their say into the bargain. They cannot even use the 'parliamentary democracy' excuse - a referendum was a manifesto promise. No semantic cleverness is required. It's a simple matter of "spot the difference". A referendum on the EU as a whole is closer to a referendum on the Constitution than a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. The only difference is that losing the referendum on the EU as a whole would mean we leave. Whereas with the Treaty of Lisbon there remains the small matter of Maastricht, Nice... If this treaty needs a referendum then so did they. We can't run seperate referenda, so let's run one big one. We were going to make it a referendum on the Constitution, which contained all previous treaties and hence solved the problem rather neatly. That was the reason for a referendum. That reason has been taken away. The logical thing to do is to find the next best way to sort out that problem. Because sorting out the problem is the committment - not something as comparatively petty as a referendum on a single treaty. The only people in the whole of the EU who have the nerve to suggest that the constitution and the treaty differ in any material way are Labour and Lib Dem MP's (and even some Labour MP's haven't got such a brass neck!). As I've explained, it is different in two key respects: 1. As mentioned above, it does not include all the previous treaties and hence, although the reforms are similar (hence the legitimate comments about similarities) is significantly different. 2. Chunks of it don't apply (though we have the option to participate to Britain and therefore it's in many respects a different treaty for us than for other countries! I happen to disagree with this but it's true. We in the Liberal Party will continue to campaign for a referendum because we trust the people. But not enough for the real referendum, which the Liberal Democrats are fighting for. I hope LibDems can live with their betrayal of the electorate. I do not believe the electorate will be so forgiving. 21%. The difficulty for LibDems is that they have invested so much intellectual capital in the EU that they dare not critcise it no matter how illiberal it becomes. Have I not criticised the EU myself on these boards? Does the party not support attempts to reform the EU to make it work as it's supposed to? If you missed my criticisms of the EU, try this: I think the Common Agricultural Policy is abominable and that the agricultural subsidies should be scrapped, or at the very least least reformed out of all recognition. I recognise there's a democratic deficit and I want to see it bridged. I oppose decisions being taken behind closed doors and welcome the decision of the Council to meet in public. I think that the Commission's powers need to be reviewed and reduced, with MEPs given legislative initiative rights. As to other policy differences:- Have a look at our policies on taxation - real reforms not just tinkering to keep middle England happy. We remain committed to Land Value Taxation (former colleagues in the LibDems may remember that). LVT still has its supporters. I prefer Local Income Tax because I tend to favour progressive taxes. I can see advantages to LVT, but there are possible problems - such as some areas of land being abandoned, or people being taxed out of their homes by rising land prices. We remain commited to unilateral disarmament and would not renew trident - ever. Whereas the Lib Dems are committed to global disarmament and want to cut Trident now as a bargaining chip in the upcoming disarmament talks, while still retaining some warheads in order to retain our place at the negotiating table to help convince others. Unilateralism is great but it can only take us so far. Eventually it would just put us at risk - its a nuclear-free world we want, not just a nuclear-free UK. We are opposed to the Government's 'pathfinder' demolition scheme. In Liverpool hundreds have had their houses removed from them by compulsory purchase order - by a LibDem Council! What happened to a right to Liberty, PROPERTY and security. LibDems dropped that from their consititution for some social democratic claptrap. What is in any sense 'Liberal' about the mass compulsory purchase of property? I've heard a rather different story: I've heard that the Liberals have been guilty of NIMBYism on a scale undreamed of even by the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors! In Liverpool the 'LibDem' Council has been complicit in taking a Victorian park off the people of city (to whom it was left) and giving (and I do mean giving) it to a football club and some carpetbagging American businessmen. Thats 'Liberal' Democracy in action! Like I said, I've heard other interpretations. I don't know about the case you mention so I don't feel I can comment. If I remember I'll try and find out more about it. If you are a LibDem then fine. But don't pretend to be a 'Liberal' just because you think you can win more votes by dressing social democracy in those clothes. I am not a social democrat. I don't know how much more simply I can put it. I am a liberal and a Liberal Democrat. And now that we've got a true Orange Booker as our leader I think we can expect to see the last traces of social democracy (which never really took hold in the way that Michael Meadowcroft and others feared) disappearing. Most have already gone, hence Meadowcroft's return. I've made something of a study of liberalism - I think I've got a rough idea what it means. I'll grant that there are certainly party members who aren't proper liberals and who don't understand what that means. But I'd be extremely surprised if the same was not at least equally true of your party. It's certainly not an isolated phenomenon. The reason the LibDems pay so much attention to us (out of all proportion to our size and any threat we might present) is that we are an embarassment and remind some of our former colleagues what they gave up - their liberalism. But the Lib Dems hardly pay any attention to you! You barely even got a mention when Michael Meadowcroft saw the light, though he himself got an article in Liberal Democrat News. I suppose it's possible that you get marginally more attention that most parties of your size - but then, considering our shared history and, in many ways, ideology, that's hardly surprising. I think your party is interesting, which is why I'm posting here. But how many other Lib Dems are there on this board? That's in spite of several links being posted on the forums of the Liberal Democrat Youth and Students movement. And there are plenty of people who post there. I'd love to give you examples of where your liberalism has fallen by the wayside, but my recollection is that your website is out of date regarding policy anyway. There's not much point in criticising discarded policies. :lol:

Liberal Party V Lib Dems
I am sorry that this can only be a brief contribution but it is VITAL that the Liberal Party continue to attack the Liberal Democrats. My long association with the Liberal Democrats ' embedded' within the party proved what a deceitful party they are. They are far more dangerous than either the Conservatives or Labour - We know what their policies are and can offer alternatives. The Liberal Democrats certainly are not the 'nice' party they convey and are opportunistic. The reason we must attack the Lib-Dems but not its party members is that there are a lot of Liberals there that will return to The ‘REAL’ Liberal Party. Up and down the United Kingdom the Lib-Dems are the ' not the Tory Party' or ' not the Labour Party' depending on who is in power. Certainly Bournemouth is a good example where there only strategy after losing 30 councillors out of 37 is that "The Tories will mess up and it will be our turn next." I am pleased (indeed proud) to belong to a party that tells it like it is and I can now face people on the doorstep. The more people find out what we believe the more they are aware of the Liberal Party. We have the problem of the media, which assumes that the Liberal Democrats are the third party by default and the Liberal Democrats arrogantly, assume they have the franchise for the third party – They are wrong!

Re: Liberal Party V Lib Dems
I am sorry that this can only be a brief contribution but it is VITAL that the Liberal Party continue to attack the Liberal Democrats. My long association with the Liberal Democrats ' embedded' within the party proved what a deceitful party they are. They are far more dangerous than either the Conservatives or Labour - We know what their policies are and can offer alternatives. The Liberal Democrats certainly are not the 'nice' party they convey and are opportunistic. The reason we must attack the Lib-Dems but not its party members is that there are a lot of Liberals there that will return to The ‘REAL’ Liberal Party. Up and down the United Kingdom the Lib-Dems are the ' not the Tory Party' or ' not the Labour Party' depending on who is in power. Certainly Bournemouth is a good example where there only strategy after losing 30 councillors out of 37 is that "The Tories will mess up and it will be our turn next." Hang on - you criticise the Lib Dems for being "not the Tories" or "not Labour" just after having said how important it is for your party to be "not the Lib Dems". I do not understand how you can reconcile the two! I am pleased (indeed proud) to belong to a party that tells it like it is and I can now face people on the doorstep. The more people find out what we believe the more they are aware of the Liberal Party. We have the problem of the media, which assumes that the Liberal Democrats are the third party by default and the Liberal Democrats arrogantly, assume they have the franchise for the third party – They are wrong! The Lib Dems currently are the third party. There's no arrogance involved at all! Compare and contrast with your party: no MPs, very few councillors, practically nobody has heard of you. It's harsh but it's true. Even in the darkest hour (1960s) of what is now the Liberal Democrat Party there were six MPs at Westminster. Regarding the media, I think most Lib Dems could sympathise with you.

I've come late to this thread, so please excuse me. This is my take on this. Since 1988 the Liberal Party has been working hard to reassert itself and let people know that it still exists. The party has a number of councillors now, and is strong in Liverpool, Wyre Forest and elsewhere. What it has lacked for a long time is a national profile, and this is something that it needs if it is to attract more support. Councillors are all well and good, but unless people know the party is here they will not be able to express support for us. PR would be a major boost, but that is out of our hands to a certain extent until there is either a hung parliament when there is a distinct possibility of PR being introduced for Westminster elections, or either Labour or the Tories decide it is in their best interests to introduce it. The party is starting to gain recognition. There are more letters in the press from Liberals, and the formation of this forum can only be a good thing. At the end of the day the grassroots will play an enormous part. Unfortunately, the Labour proposals that were introduced to stop political fraud and other problems has made it harder for small parties to increase in size as they need to have certain things in place (such as I believe, a committee etc) before they can form a local party and stand in elections. But let's look on the bright side. We have a growing number of councillors. We have come very close to unseating Labour in West Derby. Starting from the tiny base we had in 1988, what we have now is remarkable. It's simply a matter of keeping on keeping on!

I think the Liberal Party is struggling to survive. Its size makes that almost inevitable. My Lib Dem local party has almost 60 people in it. We have practically no chance of winning the Westminster seat here. We have almost double the number of councillors that the Liberal Party has in Liverpool (you have 4, as I recall). We're about 500 on the list of Lib Dem winnable seats. What does all this mean? It means that even where the Lib Dems are fairly weak we're still stronger than the Liberal Party is in its strongholds. These are harsh truths but they are truths. Considering that our parties are so similar in doctrine (our Constitution preambles are practically identical I think) that a founder of the Liberal Party has now joined the Liberal Democrats I'd like to ask how long it will be before the rest of you give up. In all honesty, if the Liberal Party ceased to exist I would not be surprised if the Liberal Democrats were to drop the "Democrats". This has already happened to the youth movement (Liberal Youth, formerly Liberal Democrat Youth and Students).

Just being small does not mean we are destined to die out. Remember that the Lib Dems almost died out themselves within 18 months of the merger. It was only hard work by Paddy Ashdown and others that kept the party going. And you also have to remember that the merged party had control of the MPs, local councillors, party funds (such as they were at the time) and so on. The Liberal Party started from scratch with a handful of activisits and now, 20 years on, has more councillors than I suspect many of its own members ever hoped for. As for the Lib Dems, if you get rid of the social democrat element then perhaps the two parties could talk, but until then no chance.

As for the Lib Dems, if you get rid of the social democrat element then perhaps the two parties could talk, but until then no chance. The Liberal Democrats are a liberal party - not a social democratic party. I think that's actually been agreed by Conference, which means that we don't claim to be a social democratic party. There are some members who are less liberal than others (vide Liverpool). However, the main direction of the party is very definitely liberal. As for dropping "Democrats" from the name, that's impossible for as long as there is a "Liberal Party" registered. I don't think it's a question of the parties talking, either. I think it's a question of your party shutting up shop, actually. If you're genuinely liberals, help make sure the Lib Dems stay that way and, where appropriate, become more so. If you aren't, the name's a bit dishonest. You say there is a social democratic element. Is this just based on the merger or are there policies you want to point to?

Er... Kennedy was an SDP man through and through, as were (are?) most of your policies. When the SDP merged (in a merger incidentally that had more abstainers than actually votes in support), with the Liberal Party, the SDP had the upper hand. Even dear old Paddy wanted to call the party the Democrats (which was fitting then as they never won elections at that time either). Clegg now seems to be cosying up to the Tories. How is this liberal? Sorry, but the liberals in your party died out in the merger. Sorry, but they didn't. Did you listen to Nick Clegg's speech to Spring Conference? Put it this way: he is not cosying up to the Tories. On some issues the Tories happen to have liberal policies (more by luck than design, I'm sure). It is only fitting that we agree with them there - and that we disagree where they have illiberal policies. Kennedy was SDP but, ironically, shifted the party in a liberal direction in many ways. You still haven't provided an example of a social democratic policy.

One thing I would do, is make it easier for people to join the party through the website. At the moment you have to download a form from a PDF file, complete and return with a cheque or postal order. There are many ways for people to sign up online these days, whether PayPal or some other merchant service. The site also needs to make it clearer as to where the form (if you choose to download it) should be sent to, as there are about three different addresses on the site at the moment, which is confusing. I realise that the size of the party means that this is not something that is top of a priority list, but it should be looked at.

I realise that the size of the party means that this is not something that is top of a priority list, but it should be looked at. It is possible that there is nobody in a position of authority who knows that it is possible. How IT-aware is your party? This forum is, after all, technically unofficial.

I doubt that - we do have a website and blogs etc. It's more likely that it has been overlooked and/or that there is no one with the time to set it up yet. But I will point it out... :)

I'm a professional website designer and in my opinion, the current Liberal party website is dreadful.

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