Britain is in the middle of the most important referendum campaign in decades and the outcome will have profound implications for the future of our country. Britain is a leading nation in Europe and it is essential that we do not walk away from the European Union. The viability of our economy, our society and our power in the world depends on us voting to Remain. But more than just the fate of this country, the outcome of the EU Referendum could have ramifications across our continent. There is so much at stake we cannot afford to gamble with the future of Britain or Europe.
In this campaign, two visions of Britain are being fought over. One is of a liberal progressive Britain, which embodies fairness, tolerance and internationalism. The other is a Britain of nostalgic nationalism built on fear, division and isolationism. A vote to Remain in the EU is a vote for hope over fear and for unity over division. A vote to Leave is a vote to reduce Britain's influence in the world and to turn our backs on our nearest friends and allies.Read more
by Energlyn Churchill
Who are the Liberal Democrats and what are they for? It's a question that the electorate has struggled with, not least because different party members are likely to give differing answers. If all political parties are broad churches, then ours is broader than most. Classic Liberalism, Social Liberalism, Economic Liberalism, Social Democracy; you name it and I've probably encountered it during my 22 year association with the Party. It goes some way towards explaining why we have often been accused of trying to be all things to all people.
The historic failure of Liberal leaders to nail any definitive colours to the mast has not helped the situation. Instead, we have relied on the 'cult' of well known local candidates who 'get things done'; on being the party of protest; on being the party that does a good job locally. Other than perhaps having the vague sense that we are a 'progressive' party, very few vote Liberal Democrat because they have a clue what Liberalism is. Frankly, we've never really told them.Read more
"Immigration has been a blessing for our country".
"This country was built on the back of hard work by migrants".
I wish that during the course of this referendum campaign we would hear more statements like these from our leading politicians and thinkers - because it's the truth.
Like me, I'm sure many of you are thoroughly depressed by what at times seems like constant immigrant bashing on our televisions sets and in our newspapers. Those who want us to leave the EU on 23rd June, are resorting to the 'immigration' card because they have lost all credibility on the economics of Brexit, which would be disastrous. I'm sad to say that the Remain side have not pushed back hard enough on all the false claims that the 'leavers' are making. If they want to make immigration an issue in this debate, let them. It'll give our side the opportunity to present the facts about how good immigration has been for the UK.
As the grandson of refugees from Cyprus, I know how much migrants to the UK from all around the world have contributed to our society. I know because my family have given back to our economy and our local community. Because my neighbours’ families have, my friends’ families have. I come from one of the most diverse parts of the country, the London Borough of Brent. Here, people from all around the world live and work side by side. It works in Brent and in communities up and down the country because we view our diversity as our greatest strength.
by Andrew Toye
It has been the mantra of modern times: an unquestionable article of faith – “The customer is always right”. We are all supposed to be “on the side of the consumer”, against big and powerful vested interests that would rip us off given half a chance.
Given that the Customer is King, I wondered why, in His realm, that there is one huge gaping hole that the free market is failing to fill? By this I mean housing.
Despite all the rhetoric, the consumer of private rented accommodation is being ripped off mercilessly. Rents are going up well above inflation, but the quality of the product that they pay for stays the same (and in some cases deteriorates). Powerful vested interests (landlords) even have the law on their side. You want to double your money? No problem; as long as there are people who are rich enough (and stupid enough) to pay the rents, you can. Some local authorities have a landlords’ licensing scheme, and often serve correction notices on those whose property is sub-standard, but there is no consumer watchdog as in other markets - the customer is always wrong. It all goes back to Magna Carta: wealthy barons protecting their property interests from bad King John. (Democracy came later).Read more
Part one of this two-part series can be read here.
Why the party has to work within the left rather right
If the Party’s much heralded ‘fight back’ slogan is to avoid fighting back against its former voters, working against the logic of the electoral system, or to not act as a mere rallying call aiming to distract the public from our recent mistakes, then the Party must accept the key dilemma of having to ‘pick a side’. Only then will it be a meaningful return that will lead to us getting more MPs elected. I believe that for strategic reasons alone the Party must choose the left. While special accommodation should be made for right-leaning Liberal Democrats, the case that the Party should again be allowed to operate on the left is so overwhelming that doing so is in the common interest.
In July 2015, Pack and Howarth set out their ‘How to rebuild a core vote’ strategy and argued that, as a values based Party, the Liberal Democrats should seek to build a core vote of people who hold a basic liberal outlook, e.g. tolerance and openness to others. They calculated this to comprise about 38% of the electorate. They similarly recognised that the major dynamic of British politics is however not liberal/ illiberal, but left/ right, observing that ‘… contrary to the repeated hopes of Liberal (and Liberal Democrat) politicians, much of politics has been fought out for many decades not in the field of openness, tolerance and internationalism but in the field of economics’. When they then looked at the economic views of these voters with a broadly liberal outlook, they found that the group was skewed towards the left, observing:
‘… about a fifth put themselves right of centre on whether the government should redistribute incomes, about a fifth are centrists and three fifths are left of centre, of whom one in three are very strongly in favour of redistribution and two out of three somewhat in favour. Similarly on questions about privatisation, nationalisation and tax and spend, the median tolerant and open voter is on the centre-left. YouGov’s profile of Liberal Democrat voters produces a similar result and what we know of the post-May 2015 new members is that many were motivated by left-of-centre issues such as proposed cuts in social security benefits and threats to employment protection.’ (p5)Read more
It is often observed in British politics that to succeed electorally, political parties should stick to the centre ground. Under Nick Clegg’s leadership, centrism was placed at the forefront of how the Liberal Democrat party positioned itself to the public. While he was correct to recognise that the main dynamic in British politics is (sadly) not illiberal/ authoritarian versus liberal, but actually right versus left, he was wrong to conclude that the Party’s response should be centrism. The 2015 General Election showed us that pursuing a centrist strategy was a catastrophic error. As former Cambridge MP and City Council Leader Professor David Howarth told us on this website immediately after the General Election last year, it is something ‘we must never do again’.
Liberal Democrats who still think centrism can take the Party to success hold a paradoxical stance where their preference over the Party's positioning is incompatible with it achieving a General Election breakthrough. More generally, many do not fully understand why centrism will not work, failing to realise its impact upon wider strategy and thinking. The electoral reality for most minor parties means that they need to pick a left/ right side and work within it - especially one whose support is geographically dissipated and which operates under a First Past The Post system. This article will argue that for simple, compelling and strategic reasons, the Party should not pick the Right, but the Left. This will be an unpalatable proposition for some, but it is vital that this dilemma be addressed so that any Liberal Democrat fight back is based on solid foundations.Read more
David Cameron has finally announced the long-awaited European Union Referendum for Thursday 23rd June. Much of the media coverage has focused on the divisions within the Conservative Party, especially between Cameron and Boris Johnson. This is an argument about the future of our country. The pro-European case must not be restricted to moderate Tories; there is a centre-left progressive case for Britain’s EU membership that needs hearing.
The arguments so far have focussed on the economic case for Britain’s membership of the EU. Britain does much of its trade with the EU. This is the economic life blood of our small and medium-sized businesses, and with it the thousands of jobs that depend on them. A threat to our free trade with Europe would increase the price of everyday goods, what the Liberals a century ago dubbed “stomach taxes”. However, there’s much more to our membership of the EU than just economics.Read more
This post details the criteria, judging panel and timeline for the inaugural Charles Kennedy Award for Social Justice.
The Social Liberal Forum launched the Charles Kennedy award for Social Justice at the SLF Conference held a few weeks after his untimely death in 2015. Nominations were officially opened at the subsequent Liberal Democrat Federal conference in Bournemouth in September 2015.
Nominations will remain open until Sunday 13th March 2016 - please contact us for a nomination form.
The award will go to an individual or group which has:
campaigned tirelessly to deliver social justice or to raise awareness of particular groups affected by it
devised innovative and creative approaches to tackle particular issues, overcoming barriers to support
built cross party or cross sector relationships in order to further social justice
challenged or investigated social injustices in a way that has made a difference
engaged in policy advocacy to protect and promote social justice for the most vulnerable
Naomi Smith steps down from Social Liberal Forum - New Interim Chair appointed
Naomi Smith is stepping down as Chair of the Social Liberal Forum as she is starting a new role that requires political neutrality.
At its Council Meeting on Saturday 9th January 2016, the SLF Council decided unanimously to appoint current Director, Gordon Lishman, as interim Chair, effective immediately, until the next set of SLF council elections take place in the Summer.Read more
SLF Executive Director, Gordon Lishman, writes about a new Economics motion the Social Liberal Forum will be submitting for Conference to debate.
For the past few weeks I have been working closely with colleagues - including Vince Cable - on an Economics motion to be submitted to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.
Throughout the coalition years and despite efforts by some of our Ministers and spokespeople, Liberal Democrat economic policy was defined in the eyes of the electorate by George Osborne. This is our first opportunity to agree a new, distinctive policy on broad economic issues for an independent Party.
The motion re-states existing policy in important areas and puts it in the context of a new overall economic policy for the Liberal Democrats. It also puts the Party firmly in its traditional, social liberal approach to the economy as set out in the Preamble to our Constitution. That includes our commitment to social justice, the enabling State and to tackling growing inequalities.Read more