The Lib Dems should not move left

Sadly, not too many people know that the Lib Dems are in the process of choosing a new leader. The contest is between Ed Davey and Layla Moran. Although it is easy to dismiss us Lib Dems as unimportant, our localised strength and overall level of support (fluctuating between the current 8-10 per cent and the 20 per cent or so of a year ago) are sufficient to make a big difference in future elections. So it matters how the Lib Dem leader positions the party in relation to the new Labour leadership. One of the wackier ideas being floated is that the party should move to the left of Labour to scoop up disillusioned Corbynistas.

The old left-right dialectic is however becoming increasingly unhelpful. It doesn’t comfortably fit into the increasingly important “politics of identity”: where one stands on Brexit, race, immigration, Celtic nationalism. Or the politics of gender. Or the politics of the environment. How do we classify a trans-phobic, anti-immigrant, Labour Brexiteer who happens to believe in clause four socialism? Or a green, feminist Tory? As someone who self-identifies as a social liberal, a social democrat and centre-left I am used to being regarded as too left-wing by Tories and too right-wing by socialists. So I treat these labels lightly.

To the extent that these labels have meaning, they relate to the issue of how far ideology played a part in the disastrous Labour defeat and the disappointing Lib Dem failure to make a serious advance in December. Brexit clearly played a major role in turning off Labour voters in the north and Lib Dem voters in the south west. But the Corbyn far-left agenda, which may have seemed a refreshing antidote to Theresa May’s robotic campaigning in 2017 was, after two years of exposure, more obviously a toxic mix of nastiness and wildly unrealistic utopian economics. That is the main reason why Conservative Remainers failed to deliver the expected harvest of Lib Dem victories in Remain seats. The message on the doorsteps was: “given a choice between a Corbyn-led government and a Tory Brexit, we will take our chances with Brexit.”

Keir Starmer seems to have turned around the Labour Party’s fortunes very quickly. He is so obviously an improvement both in style and substance and this has already communicated itself to the public. His interventions have been well judged and he sounds so much more sensible than Johnson. But the really hard work lies ahead: demonstrating ambition with prudence on the economy and jettisoning all but a handful of Labour’s undeliverable election promises. Facing down Len McClusky on a major issue of policy at the next Labour conference (September 2001?) will be a big test. In the meantime Labour is attracting back the middle-of-the-road voters and members it will need to win again.

The immediate challenge for the next Lib Dem leader will be to keep the party relevant and visible at a time when Labour dominates the opposition coverage and is getting rave reviews. He or she has first of all to steady the ship after a third bad election, the more so as the outlook seemed so much brighter last summer. Mistakes were then made, over-confidence in the Remain vote led to the premature push for an early election and to dropping the popular “people’s vote” message for unilateral revocation of Brexit, which came across as arrogant. In addition to learning lessons and restoring morale, the new leader also has to manage a large membership of fervent Remainers who were inspired to campaign on a single issue which is no longer an issue and may be inclined to give up on politics altogether.

In this difficult period there may be a temptation to grab a bit of attention by making a bid for disillusioned Corbynistas abandoning a more moderate Labour party. The Lib Dems had a “left of Labour” period after the Iraq war when the party became a haven for anti-war protestors (and Labour voters). The 2005 election was a high-water mark for that kind of politics. It produced short-term results: a record level of MPs (64). It also led to a populist, “free things” approach to policy which built up expectations, especially amongst young people, which were bound to be deflated in government, let alone after the tough fiscal discipline embraced by the coalition. That subsequent history has also made the Lib Dems an unattractive and improbable destination for the far-left.

Lib Dem history does suggest an altogether more optimistic and useful way forward. I was chosen as a candidate for Twickenham, then a comfortably Tory seat, when the Lib Dems struggled to compete with the Monster Raving Loony Party. The Labour Party was recovering from its flirtation with the 1980s version of Corbynism and was the main focus of hopes to turn the political tide. However it became apparent to Paddy Ashdown and his team that there was a road back from oblivion parallel to, and complementary with, the Labour Party. The Lib Dems had a strong base in local government and had the potential to win a few dozen, overwhelmingly Tory, parliamentary seats in areas where, for demographic and historical reasons, Labour had no hope. There was a tacit non-aggression pact. The Lib Dems targeted ruthlessly. A few years later, with Tony Blair leading Labour, the strategy worked.

That is the way back now. After last year’s record haul of wins in local council elections and a lot of “good seconds” in the December elections, the Lib Dems have an excellent platform to be part of a centre-left comeback. It needs the two leaders to recognise reality, including overlapping values and interests, to cooperate to deliver the country from one of the worst governments in our country’s political history.