Better Nation proudly announces a new Editor this morning with Andrew Page joining our ranks. Andrew is a history graduate, advocate for LGBT equality, Albion Rovers supporter and a Liberal Democrat so (as he admits himself) well accustomed to being identified with minority causes. Andrew contested Renfrewshire North and West for the his party in 2011 and also blogs at A Scottish Liberal.
This question has inevitably been asked following the party’s poor performance in last week’s by-elections – most notably in Rotherham where the Liberal Democrats finished in eighth place with two per cent of the vote.
What results from Middlesbrough, Croydon North and Rotherham actually tell us about the Liberal Democrats is minimal. These are constituencies where Liberal Democrats never did well, even in the supposedly good times. Middlesbrough (and its predecessor constituency Middlesbrough East) has not returned a non-Labour MP since 1931. The same is true of Rotherham. Croydon has been Labour held since 1992. That Labour won comfortably should not be remotely surprising.
That hasn’t stopped many in the media predicting the imminent death of the Liberal Democrats. The Daily Telegraph has claimed Rotherham to be the worst ever result for a major political party, clearly forgetting Inverclyde – a constituency in which we had controlled the council until 2007. Nigel Farage has joined them, making the grandiose claim that UKIP are now the “third force” of British politics, himself conveniently forgetting the various nationalist parties or Respect, the one-man party that has been able to do on multiple occasions what UKIP never have: win a parliamentary seat.
It has been quite astonishing to see how the media have bought into UKIP’s spin. What these by-elections have shown is that UKIP is never likely to become any kind of force in domestic politics, third or otherwise. They are not the SDP. Rotherham was certainly a by-election they could and should have won. The former MP stepped down in disgrace, his reputation and that of his local party in tatters. This, combined with the child adoption scandal and virtually anonymous and poorly-resourced local Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, gave UKIP a real chance of making a breakthrough.
The Independent claimed that UKIP was now “within touching distance of mainstream politics” on the basis of securing 22 per cent of the vote in a single constituency. George Galloway must be positively an establishment figure by that logic. If the result says much at all, it is that voters in Rotherham prefer authoritarian parties.
Of course, the result was spectacularly poor from a Liberal Democrat perspective. But what it doesn’t actually do is tell us anything we didn’t know previously. Clearly we are no longer the beneficiaries of public anger towards the establishment, as we are now very much part of it. The identity as a “none of the above” party, which to an extent the Liberal Democrats were responsible for cultivating, has been consigned to history – protest votes now going to various parties perceived as best placed to overthrow the incumbent party. Certainly that role we sought for ourselves has now been usurped. But these by-election results do not reveal this to us, they merely underline an already obvious reality.
The media are right about one thing, and that is that the Liberal Democrats are in mortal danger. The Scottish parliamentary elections and the local elections across the UK have demonstrated a pattern, which shows little sign of being reversed. Not only is the party suffering electorally, it has been struggling for cultural and political relevance particularly in Scotland. A growing insecurity is becoming evident in the public words of some of our key parliamentarians.
John Curtice has estimated that, in 2015, the Liberal Democrats will be reduced to 15 MPs. Using data from all elections since 2010, I calculated a figure of 23 – i.e. 1992 levels. In constituencies where we are the Conservatives’ closest rivals, or they are ours, we look set to do well. That may not appear too disastrous until we consider the implications for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland: both Professor Curtice and myself have a single Scottish Lib Dem MP surviving the potential massacre – Alistair Carmichael.
The reasons we find ourselves in this position are numerous, and more complex than mere association with the Westminster coalition – although that certainly has contributed to the scale of the problem. Inflexible and outdated campaigning methods, financial difficulties, a lack of distinctiveness on policy matters and leadership that struggled to resonate with the public all contributed to some degree to the disastrous Holyrood election results. The SNP’s slick, professional and ruthlessly effective campaign further highlighted our deficiencies. Since then, there has been little evidence– in spite of positive rhetoric and a few good performances from Willie Rennie in FMQs – that we are capable of turning this around.
Part of our problem in Scotland is inevitably the coalition and therefore in looking to the future we must look beyond 2015. Whatever realpolitik demanded of Nick Clegg following the indecisive 2010 General Election, it was obvious that there would be significant ramifications for Liberal Democrats in Scotland – where any relationship with the Conservatives would inevitably be construed as treachery. How long this perception will endure is uncertain, but it is not necessarily irreversible. Accepting that a significant setback is likely in 2015 and building for the years beyond is far from the worst approach the party in Scotland could take. It would certainly be preferable to the fierce defensiveness we’ve seen to date.
The best way for the Liberal Democrats to ensure they have a future is by demonstrating the need for a strong liberal party at the heart of politics. In the last few weeks, issues such as secret courts and media freedom and shown how vital it is that liberal voices make themselves heard. I, for one, have been impressed by Nick Clegg on these matters. Of course, what impresses me as a party activist does not necessarily have similar effects on the public but championing an active, vibrant liberalism, especially in relation to issues of public liberty, is likely to be far more effective in recreating our social relevance than endless defence of participation in government.
Part of our problem is that only around eleven per cent of people identify themselves as liberal. In a sense we have electorally overperformed for decades, persuading many to vote for us in spite of – rather than because of – our liberal credentials. Populist positions on such things as the Iraq War and Higher Education funding have in the past helped to take our appeal beyond the philosophically liberal but we cannot rely on such issues in the future. But the truth is that people identified less with our policies than they did with our character. We were the nice guys of politics. We cared. We could be a bit of a gadfly party at times, but that was part of the appeal. Moreover, we could be trusted. So, while proving ourselves to be the authentic voice of liberal democracy is necessary we also have to find new ways of reaching out to those who at one time would have willingly supported us. We have to speak their language, invest in the issues that concern them and show we’re listening. We have to find ways to show we can still be trusted. As Boris Johnson has done so successfully, we must also learn how to convince people that we actually like them. It’s quite simple, but if we don’t like them why should they like us?
What we must avoid is becoming inward looking, focusing on our own pet projects such as PR, Lords Reform or federalism. Naturally, I believe in all of those but recognise two things: they are all virtually unachievable and very few voters are enthused by them. While Liberal Democrats are wildly excited by the federalist ambitions of the Home Rule Commission, neither the public nor the media are particularly interested and the former seem not to understand our position at all – something not made clearer by identification with Better Together. And of course the “debate” on federalism and Home Rule was an internal one, relating to but never engaging with Scottish voters.
The Liberal Democrats’ problems are legion, but that does not mean the party has no future. Much depends on Willie Rennie, and on the degree to which he can set his own agenda. He will realise that if he can personally regain the trust of Scottish voters, so too will his party. He will need no reminder of the importance of asserting our liberal credentials at every opportunity, but perhaps struggles to see new opportunities to reach out. That sounds like a criticism, but isn’t – it’s the inevitable consequence of a tired campaigning mechanism and inheriting a party banished to the periphery of Scottish politics.
We have to create a new identity for ourselves. That of “a party of government” is woefully inadequate given that continuing in government is not only not guaranteed but looking increasingly unlikely and that, here in Scotland, we’ve been relegated to the ranks of minor opposition. But similarly we cannot return to our former identity as a repository for protest votes or as a home for those with a dislike of the political establishment. We must ditch that and change our language and campaigning strategy accordingly. We must create a new identity while retaining our core purpose of facilitating a liberal society.
The Liberal Democrats have to demonstrate that the party is relevant. A few poor by-election results will then be insignificant. We need those distinctive, honest and trusted voices to again make themselves heard. We must re-engage and rebuild the grassroots of our party if we are to have any future at all. We have to dare to be different. We must again be that gadfly party.
#1 by Galen10 on December 3, 2012 - 9:01 am
Selling Liberalism is likely to be a long term project, so it’s good that you’re preparing yourself for the long term. Whether around 10% actually represents the “core” Liberal support (either in Scotland or the UK) remains to be seen; it may actually be higher than that in Scotland, and is simply masked by the fact that a proportion of Liberals have lent their support to the SNP in much the same way that some Scottish Tories have.
Whether the likes of Willie Rennie are fit to re-invigorate let alone re-invent Liberalism for the future has to be open to considerbale doubt. He hasn’t impressed me at all in any of his appearances or utterances. Staking out a distinct Liberal philosophy, and pointing out how it differs from both the right and left wing alternatives is a good idea in itself, but also vital if you are to de-toxify the Liberal brand. In Scotland that task is probably even harder than in the UK generally, and as you rightly point out any Liberal / LD party is likely to be saddled with the legacy of the coalition for a generation, irrespective of the result in 2014.
As a former tactical LD voter, I’m afraid I’m not hopeful for your chances of pulling the necessary transformation off, either in Scotland or the UK more widely. I’m more than ever convinced that the failure of the LD’s to break the mould of British politics in 2010, particularly the piss-poor deal they made with the Tories in the 5 days of May in 2010, may be seen in the future as one of the main causes contributing to Scotlan attaining independence, whether in 2014 or later.
The failure of proportional representation, the defection of half of the LD’s social democratic support, and the realisation that the rump Liberals are simply another party like the others with no realistic prospect of promoting a progressive agenda, still less achieving it, can only be seen in a Scottish context as a huge fillip for the independence movement, as it appears the vast majority of disaffected LD support in Scotland decamped pretty directly to the SNP.
Perhaps independistas should actually be thanking the LD’s? Your electoral sepukku and marginalization has made a Yes vote in 2014 that much more likely!
#2 by Thomas William Dunlop on December 3, 2012 - 9:08 am
“We were the nice guys of politics……………Moreover, we could be trusted”
Not any more on both counts after the coalition with the Conservatives. Your UK party has decided to put power before principle and now it will pay the consequence at the next general election.
So why not lend a vote to independence for Scotland and cleanse yourself of this stain on your principles. That way you may remain a relevant modern political force
#3 by Andrew Page on December 3, 2012 - 8:41 pm
“So why not lend a vote to independence.” My own thinking and voting intention are well known – and in fact have even been explained in detail on Better Nation!
#4 by Don McC on December 3, 2012 - 1:12 pm
Rennie isn’t the man to take the Lib dems forward in Scotland. He gives the impression of hating the SNP and allows this hatred to dictate his actions and comments to such an extent, he wouldn’t look out of place on the Labour back benches.
People are sick of this type of politics. Labour in Scotland are slowly wakening up to that, will Rennie do so before it’s too late. Probably not.
#5 by Andrew Page on December 4, 2012 - 5:34 pm
The impression of hating the SNP is something I have been consistently critical of. It’s one of the main reasons I’m suggesting we need to “change our language”.
#6 by Craig Gallagher on December 3, 2012 - 2:43 pm
A super post, and one in which your genuine anguish at the circumstances faced by the Lib Dems is tempered admirably by a clear-headed pragmatism about how to relieve them.
I would add one more point to the maelstrom you outline here. In 2010, the Liberal Democrats were the beneficiaries of unprecedented public disgust with the establishment. A deeply unpopular Labour Prime Minister combined with an unconvincing Conservative Leader of the Opposition – all the while with the stench of the expenses scandal lingering in the air – to allow the public to invest a considerable amount of trust and hope in something different. Politics as usual was anathema to the majority of voters, and so I believe they sought to change the dynamic entirely by empowering the Lib Dems in London (as they had the SNP in Edinburgh three years before).
Unfortunately, due to the limitations of First Past The Post and the gentleman’s agreement that the largest party should have the right to form a government, the Lib Dems were caught in a pincer movement and forced to try to live up to the public’s aspirations for them while attached to one of the most radical Tory manifestations of the twentieth century. And so the public felt burned, having placed their faith in the Lib Dems to be different and very quickly built the perception that Clegg et al were stooges of the first order.
I know it will never happen, but I can’t help think that the first and most substantial way the Lib Dems can begin to regain some public trust is to dethrone the current UK government. Even if they ends up leaving the Tories as a minority – or even better, if they can cobble together enough SNP/Plaid Cymru/SDLP/Green/Respect votes to fashion a rainbow coalition with Labour – I still believe it is in the Lib Dems’ best interest to stop what they are currently doing and to just start over. Wishful thinking, I know.
#7 by Andrew Page on December 4, 2012 - 5:39 pm
“if they can cobble together enough SNP/Plaid Cymru/SDLP/Green/Respect votes to fashion a rainbow coalition with Labour…” This was my hope in May 2010, but it didn’t happen for several reasons – not least that Labour weren’t really up for it. It would also have been questionable whether we’d be forgiven for denying the largest party access to government. Whichever route we opted for was fraught with difficulty.
I’d also add that Labour, in my view, are no longer the natural allies of the Liberal Democrats. We had a positive and understandable useful working relationship with them in the 1990s and early 2000s, but a great deal has happened since then and I certainly don’t want us ever again to go down the route of too closely allying ourselves to the Labour Party.
#8 by Richard Thomas on December 3, 2012 - 3:16 pm
As a Lib Dem myself, the question is troubling. In Scotland there are 4 parties competing for roughly the same stretch of terrain to the left of centre and for the Lib Dems the question is why should anyone vote for us. I think the core of where we might operate centres around liberty, freedom of the individual and localism. I don’t really see that the other parties live there; although each does have something to say on them, their core interests are elsewhere and indeed there is to a greater or lesser extent, an authoritarian streak in all of them which, after all is said, is why I remain a Lib Dem. I have to see that this is not an immediately appealing platform for the voters but maybe after more central controls from the present government over schools, social work and I suspect planning if the London mob are any guide, folk may see the merit in a locally controlled, locally financed agenda. It will be a long road but we’ve travelled it before when we’ve been written off.
PS it is the centenary of Jo’s birth next year so we have something to work for.
#9 by Andrew Page on December 4, 2012 - 5:41 pm
I agree with you Richard.
“I don’t really see that the other parties live there; although each does have something to say on them, their core interests are elsewhere and indeed there is to a greater or lesser extent, an authoritarian streak in all of them which, after all is said, is why I remain a Lib Dem.” Same here.
I hope we do something to commemorate Jo’s birth – we’ll be missing a trick if we don’t.
#10 by Iain McGowan on December 3, 2012 - 3:45 pm
Libdems future: It is difficult to see a Libdem future in UK politics where the major parties all seem to occupy
basically the same ground.
Scotland is different but the association with Bitter together will damage them further and be seen as an
extension of the hated co-alition.
#11 by Bill Chapman on December 3, 2012 - 3:54 pm
One way for LibDems to be elected is for them to hide their political affiliation and stand as “Independents. This was what the new Police and Crime Commissioner for North Wales did. He dared to be different so that he didn’t come fifth. Incidentally, your LibDem man sees this as a part-time job. See, for example:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/north-wales-police-commissioner-winston-1466111
Mr Roddick presented himself to the electorate as an independent, then it was revealed that he had been a member of the Liberal Democrats all along. There has been a lot of undisguised unhappiness about this in the blogosphere and elsewhere.
There is nothing wrong with being a Liberal Democrat, but Winston Roddick deliberately misled the public to avoid coming fifth – his certain fate if he had declared his political allegiance. Now he further shows his contempt for the electorate he misled by continuing to work in another highly paid job.
Is this the way forward for the LibDems, perhaps?
#12 by Andrew Page on December 3, 2012 - 9:19 pm
Lib Dems have done this before, in council elections for example. Other parties have too – the Socialist Party in England are quite adept at having their candidates elected at local level on single issue tickets. But it’s not something I like – too intellectually dishonest. And it certainly doesn’t help the party regain the public’s confidence.
#13 by Gavin Hamilton on December 3, 2012 - 5:10 pm
Andrew, many congratulations on becoming a Better Nation editor and I look forward to the posts.
I don’t know if being a gadfly of a party (one that poses awkward questions of the status quo) is part of the solution or part of the problem. The LibDems need to be clear about who they are and what they want to do and be consistent in campaigning for this and executing it when they have influence.
Certainly, after a successful decade, support for the LibDems has disappeared like snow off a dyke throughout the country but in Scotland in particular. Most of this seems to be because of being part of the coalition government and being in coalition with the Tories in particular.
But I think you rightly say Andrew that in the past supporters have often identified with their perception of the LibDems character – maybe some general sense of being like them – rather than their policies.
The policies are there and have been remarkably consistent over the years but neither the media and even more so the public have always been fully aware of them – and the party has not always been very successful at communicating them.
This allowed Nick Clegg to do incredibly well overnight off the back of TV debates in 2010 and then that support to disappear fast over the last week of the election and then the rest of 2010. Too much of the support was built on sand.
Coalition government has been difficult thus far. I think there is a lot that has been delivered but it has not been well communicated or understood. I don’t think the British political nation particularly understands coalition at the national level – though it does at local govt level and in the devolved governments.
I think they have not had credit for being adult and taking responsibility to participate in forming a government. Equally I think it has been forgotten just how bad a situation we were in and continue to be in. And I think there is a good deal of unrealism about how much room for manoeuvre there is for significantly better alternatives.
Unfortunately, the mishandling of English tuition fees has set the narrative – and this undermines what has been done. Also I think there has been a lack of political sure footedness – managing to appear more accomplices than taking part in a business arrangement – which is what the coalition actually is.
However, I think the fundamental demand for a centrist, pragmatic, non nationalist alternative remains and is not going to go away. The challenge is much of the space the LibDems occupied is now occupied by the pragmatic wing of the SNP. And on the left the Greens seem a fresher, more modern alternative to those who want a radical solution and something close to our communities. I think the Greens are very attractive to the old ‘a plague on both your houses’ crowd.
So, I don’t think the LibDems will see much recovery till after the referendum/Holyrood election (whatever the result) and after the Westminster election in (maybe) 2015.
Then, there may be a chance to gain kudos of being probably Scotland’s most consistent and enthusiastic party for devolution. And gain kudos for being pro-Europe, pro-green, pro-civil liberties and having a pragmatic outlook for providing prosperity and social justice.
It is often tough being a liberal – they can often be outflanked by the radicals and more extreme parties. This has been their fate in a many a revolution from Russia through to Iran. But I warrant their pragmatic approach to offering a country that has Freedom of speech, freedom from want and freedom from fear is closer to what many people support.
And that is why I think, given time, the LibDems are far from finished.
#14 by Richard on December 4, 2012 - 5:24 am
“We have to create a new identity for ourselves”
How about reclaiming the old identity? i.e. being both liberal and democratic (no capitals). The current leadership, especially in Scotland, is neither.
I think that a truly liberal and democratic party could be really strong, especially in a post-Independence Scotland. The current party in Scotland suffers terribly from their subservience to outside forces.
#15 by Andrew Page on December 4, 2012 - 5:47 pm
The old identity is fine, inasmuch as we must remain true to the principles of liberalism and democracy. They are at the centre of what we are and must continue to be.
But the way we communicate and present those values must change. By identity, I mean how the public perceive us…the popular identity of the party. Liberalism and democratic values are cornerstones of our philosophy, but a party’s identity runs much deeper than this – at the moment it is very much tied up with the Westminster coalition and Nick Clegg’s determination to reinforce our status as “a responsible party of government”.
We need an identity that is relevant and appealing…a bit like New Labour but better, changing the way we do things and engage with people without abandoning our core principles.
#16 by Richard on December 5, 2012 - 12:44 am
I agree, but such a re-branding exercise, if it is to be successful, must be organic. “New Labour” is a fine example of what NOT to do. It was a “bright idea” which originated at the top and was pushed down, which isolated people and they responded to by pushing back. The first step for the LibDems, rather than coming up with “bright ideas”, must be to go back and listen to what the party members are saying and thinking. I’ve read your blog on several occasions and I know that your views are generally very different from what the party leaders publicly espouse.
I know that politics, to a certain extent, involves compromising on some principles, but when you compromise all of your principles in a mad grab for power (as the LDs are perceived to have done in Westminster), then people can be forgiven for not believing a word you say.
#17 by EyeEdinburgh on December 4, 2012 - 2:39 pm
The best way for the Liberal Democrats to ensure they have a future is by demonstrating the need for a strong liberal party at the heart of politics.
I think that the anger at the Liberal Democrats for going Tory does demonstrate the need for a strong liberal party at the heart of politics.
Unfortunately, since the LibDems went Tory, there isn’t one.
Hence my own hope that the NHAParty will succeed in taking seats in constituencies where the Tories and LibDems are the two front runners, and that the Greens may do even better in 2015 than in 2010.
Labour look set to win in 2015, just as LibDems look set for toxic wipe-out, and it’s importannt that there is a strong voice on the left to oppose the Tory/LibDem dragging us rightward.
#18 by Gavin Hamilton on December 4, 2012 - 7:02 pm
There is little doubt that the association with the Tories is a toxic one – especially in Scotland.
Otherwise I’m not sure how insightful this comment is on the LibDem future. There is anger as you describe from people who are not now and never have been LibDems. relationships with the left will take time to thaw.
In saying that by mere association with the Tories the LibDems are cursed fails to consider seriously two issues.
First, the need for political parties to step up and form an administration with what the electorate delivers.
There is a lack of serious understanding of the difficulties posed by the economy and the lack of room for manoeuvre where public spending and government stimulus was concerned.
What would a left wing government or coalition be doing right now? The example of France is interesting in this.
As I said, while I think many accept and understand coalitions at local and devolved levels, there is a lack of realism about coalition at Westminster.
And second I discern that after the 2010 election, led by many in the new Tory intake, there is an idealogical desire within the Tories to reduce the state and many who see benefits as an entitlement culture and some sort of drag on the economy.
That is not where any LibDem is coming from (or indeed some moderate conservatives).
The coalition is trying to deal with a difficult economy and shape the public purse after an economic holocaust (that a lot of people seem to have forgotten about). It is a coalition between those who want to act idealogically and those who feel certain steps have to be taken as a pre-requisite to adapt to a new era in western economies.
Saying that the LibDems are just Tories is to wilfully mis understand what is going on.
That said the LibDems need to be mindful of wolves in sheeps’ clothing. There are Tories taking the country to places no LibDem wants to go and the Libdems need to do better at offering alternatives to this and communicating that.
Finally, I think you are not being that insightful on the health service. It needs to remain a modern effective service, free at the point of delivery. But to keep that with an aging population and medicine becoming ever more expensive it may be necessary to be creative in ways we can evolve the health service.
It needs to develop into the 21st century public service – it is not a sacred cow stuck forever in the past.
Again the LibDems need to be aware of being pulled down an alley by the Tories that they had no intention of travelling down.
So I think next election is a tough one for the LibDems. But I think things will slowly thaw and their appeal will experience a resurgence.
But for that to happen they do need to remain true to who they are. Finish the job of coalition and delivering a range of objectives but make sure things are not done in their name that they just do not agree with.
Who knows, they may even in time get some grudging respect for stepping up to the plate and people may be kinda glad they are in there, not leaving the Tories to rule on their own.
#19 by Andrew Page on December 4, 2012 - 6:12 pm
Gavin Hamilton:
Andrew, many congratulations on becoming a Better Nation editor and I look forward to the posts.
Thanks!
Gavin Hamilton:
I don’t know if being a gadfly of a party (one that poses awkward questions of the status quo) is part of the solution or part of the problem. The LibDems need to be clear about who they are and what they want to do and be consistent in campaigning for this and executing it when they have influence.
It’s part of the identity that has worked effectively in the past and can do again. I understand what you’re saying, but there is not necessarily any conflict between possessing this “awkward” quality and clarity of ambition. As a party opposed to the stifling conformity so beloved of authoritarian parties, we really need to demonstrate it a bit more.
Gavin Hamilton:
The policies are there and have been remarkably consistent over the years but neither the media and even more so the public have always been fully aware of them – and the party has not always been very successful at communicating them.
This allowed Nick Clegg to do incredibly well overnight off the back of TV debates in 2010 and then that support to disappear fast over the last week of the election and then the rest of 2010. Too much of the support was built on sand.
True, it’s the communication that’s been the real problem. The first TV debate was simply a case of people waking up to the reality that a third party leader had some positive things to say. The sad thing is that many were surprised, and this translated into a temporary surge of support. But it did not last, as I never for a moment thought it would.
Gavin Hamilton:
Coalition government has been difficult thus far. I think there is a lot that has been delivered but it has not been well communicated or understood. I don’t think the British political nation particularly understands coalition at the national level – though it does at local govt level and in the devolved governments.
I think they have not had credit for being adult and taking responsibility to participate in forming a government. Equally I think it has been forgotten just how bad a situation we were in and continue to be in. And I think there is a good deal of unrealism about how much room for manoeuvre there is for significantly better alternatives.
Unfortunately, the mishandling of English tuition fees has set the narrative – and this undermines what has been done. Also I think there has been a lack of political sure footedness – managing to appear more accomplices than taking part in a business arrangement – which is what the coalition actually is.
Agreed on all counts. There have been some very poor business decisions made…admittedly in difficult circumstances but this has served to undermine the party and the project. Also the degree to which we’ve been played and outmanoeuvred by the Tories has been highly disappointing. Clegg considered the coalition an opportunity to prove our credibility and fitness to govern but, in a significant part due to our own mishandling of key situations, the reverse has happened.
Gavin Hamilton:
However, I think the fundamental demand for a centrist, pragmatic, non nationalist alternative remains and is not going to go away. The challenge is much of the space the LibDems occupied is now occupied by the pragmatic wing of the SNP. And on the left the Greens seem a fresher, more modern alternative to those who want a radical solution and something close to our communities. I think the Greens are very attractive to the old ‘a plague on both your houses’ crowd.
No, it isn’t…but we’ve got a huge task convincing the public that it should be us. And many vote for and support the SNP in spite of, rather than because of, their nationalism – so the need for a non-nationalist party can be overstated. There is a likely challenge from the Greens for whom I have similar respect to you and they are more likely to be able to successfully take up the anti-establishment position we once were synonymous with. Certainly in policy terms we’re going to find it increasingly tough to speak with a truly distinctive voice, which demonstrates the need to forge a new identity broader than that conveyed by a manifesto.
Gavin Hamilton:
So, I don’t think the LibDems will see much recovery till after the referendum/Holyrood election (whatever the result) and after the Westminster election in (maybe) 2015.
Agreed, we have to take the longer-term view.
Gavin Hamilton:
Then, there may be a chance to gain kudos of being probably Scotland’s most consistent and enthusiastic party for devolution. And gain kudos for being pro-Europe, pro-green, pro-civil liberties and having a pragmatic outlook for providing prosperity and social justice.
Yes, but we’re not hearing enough of some of that right here, right now. especially when it comes to Europe. There would be worse things for the party to do that project itself as THE party of the EU. It’s won’t happen though.
Gavin Hamilton:
It is often tough being a liberal – they can often be outflanked by the radicals and more extreme parties. This has been their fate in a many a revolution from Russia through to Iran. But I warrant their pragmatic approach to offering a country that has Freedom of speech, freedom from want and freedom from fear is closer to what many people support.
And that is why I think, given time, the LibDems are far from finished.
It’s certainly why the Lib Dems shouldn’t be finished. But we can’t naively and complacently assume that simply by being the sole liberal party in mainstream politics that we will inevitably retain a reasonably wide appeal. After all, our moderate successes in the past were not based on support for liberalism in itself but a host of other factors.
I am trying to be optimistic and hopeful. There is reason to be. But the fulfillment of that hope is dependent on a continued evolution that reflects changing political reality; a willingness to do things differently and a regaining of public trust.