The 2015 general election was not a happy one for British liberalism, as Nick Clegg identified in his resignation speech in the wake of the Liberal Democrats' election wipeout. His party had made little mention of Liberalism in its election campaign. Instead, it tried to define itself in opposition to its opponents—adding a “heart” to the Tories and a “brain” to Labour—without saying what it offered in itself. For activists like me, it was obvious how this would play out. Our hopes were sustained by polls indicating that MPs’ personal support could help the party achieve a respectable result. In the end, these turned out to be wrong. Voters mainly went for one or the other of the big parties or didn’t vote at all, and the Liberal Democrats were crushed. The horror of seeing the exit poll showing the party's near-extermination will be a memory I, like so many others, will never forget.
The party is now engaged in an extended process of self-examination, and that means reminding itself what the Liberal Democrats actually stand for. Tim Farron and Norman Lamb, the candidates in the post-apocalyptic leadership election, keenly portrayed themselves as diehard liberals. Lamb’s campaign has emphasised his ambition is to “give power to people” through a “liberal progressive movement for change”, while Farron has said that liberalism “is needed now more than ever”.
It's easy to see why both candidates have been keen to emphasise their ideological credentials. Members like me were drawn to the party by its concern for social justice, political reform, internationalism and the environment, based on a respect for individual rights and personal freedom. Those are the same values that first encouraged me to join the party as a teenager, and the same values which even during the bleakest years of the coalition encouraged me to stand as a candidate. Before the election the leadership candidates loyally went along with the party line of middle-way centrism. Now, they are seeking to return the party to its ideological comfort zone.
But it is important to remember that while a desire to promote liberal values might have propelled these men into politics, they only won their seats by fighting insurgent campaigns. That means focusing on the issues that voters care about. I came to understand this myself when I stood, as the candidate for Kensington and Chelsea at the 2015 election. (I came third and kept my deposit, meaning I was practically qualified to be party leader myself by the end of the night). I certainly did not get voters asking me how liberal I was. They were more interested in how I would solve practical problems such as the cost of housing or poor public services.
The Liberal Democrats have only ever had a tiny core vote, our strongest performance coming in 2005 under the late Charles Kennedy when we won 63 seats in the Commons. But, we have compensated for this by broadening our appeal: as the protest voters’ party, the party that deals with local issues and as the party of the popular local MP. In 1997, for example, the party made significant gains in Conservative marginal seats in the south of England, such as Winchester, as the opposition voice in those constituencies, and it held those gains until disaster stuck in 2015. If those at the top of the party now want to redefine it along ideological lines, we have to do so in a way that voters can understand. That may differ from the way the small but resilient activist base would like. The Labour Party has long realised this, as its leadership has consistently worked away from what a large proportion of the party's activist base supports, while the Conservative leadership under Cameron has fought against the social conservatism of many of its supporters.
The party could effectively make itself a pressure group for liberal values. It could ally itself with existing liberal groups—for example, human rights organisations like Amnesty or Liberty—and run long-term campaigns over many years based around a set of policies. It could even make these campaigns part of its organisational structure, with members attaching themselves to a particular campaign as well as their geographical local party. This system has been floated by a few members before, but the party's current low base allows such proposals to become a reality far more easily. A party formed as a coalition of campaign interests would be more durable, and have more reach, than the traditional geographically-organised, centrally-run British party, and as a new model for party democracy it would be an excellent example of liberal values in action.
Under a strategy based on extra-parliamentary campaigning the party would, at least until 2020 or 2025, continue to have few MPs, but in the long-term would affirm its commitment to its ideological roots and ideally attract supporters from across the spectrum. But, there is the fear that putting less emphasis on parliamentary elections would be an admission that the party is in its death throes. If the Liberal Democrats want to have any chance of winning elections, it has to also elect a charismatic leader.
Two years ago I spent a spring working for Norman Lamb on a local election campaign in his North Norfolk constituency. Just as I was learning quite how difficult campaigning across a whole constituency was, it was inspiring to be up close to an MP who had battled his way from nowhere to win a safe Conservative seat. North Norfolk includes some classic examples of rural poverty but Norman made sure he paid as much attention to these non-voting, powerless communities as he did the wealthy retirees along the coast. The Tories had long since taken the constituency for granted, and over a period of a decade, the Liberal Democrats were able to capture it one vote at a time.
We need to make sizeable gains at the next election—doubling the number of seats at least. If we stay where we are, let alone lose what we have, we will no longer be a significant force in British politics. We currently have the same number of MPs as the Northern Irish DUP, and far fewer votes than Ukip, who are coming to be seen as England’s third party.
This is why the Liberal Democrats need to elect Tim Farron as leader. His Cumbria constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale, held for a century by the Conservatives until Farron toppled them in 2005, is now the party's safest seat (Farron won a majority of 9,000). Norman Lamb also comfortably held his seat with a majority of around 4,000 votes. Both candidates can be trusted to make the Liberal Democrats the voice of the liberal community in Britain. But one stands out.
During the leadership campaign I attended one of the many hustings around the country. In a school in Islington, built by the long-vanquished local Liberal Democrats when they controlled the council, Lamb made a patient reasoned case about policy and practicality, building on his ministerial experience and formidable grasp of details.
But it was Farron, as one of the strongest communicators in any party, who raised the roof with the sort of rhetorical skill many seem to think has vanished from modern politics altogether. He spoke from the heart: about his impoverished childhood, his slog to win his seat, his heartbreak at the party's electoral nightmare. His performance confirmed for me why he is the frontrunner in today's leadership election. With Farron at the helm, we stand a chance of turning into a powerful voice in parliament once again.
