Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ulysse Abbate's avatar

Big fan of the overall piece! Insofar as areas where I would personally look to develop this (excuse the Star Wars analogies in advance):

1. The bad guys:

1a. I feel like some of the points in section 2 are a bit 'ethereal'. You have mentioned many of the villains, but, at least in the current form (which I appreciate is likely due to the bullet point vs notional speech format, which you have already recognised), it feels like you are describing many smaller villains which might not properly attract people's attention (eg someone who isn't too interested in the peculiarities of pension fund Liability Driven Investments into the Gilt markets might not understand why Liz Truss is a villain). You have given 10 (accurately villainous) stormtroopers, whilst what we need is the Darth Vader.

1b. I also think the framing of some of the villains in this piece sounds like The Empire (the big bad liberals aiming to keep things the way they are) annoyed by The Rebels (the cool, Han Solo-esque heroes fighting for freedom and liberty)'. There may be some mileage in really highlighting how Farage, Johnson et al. are the real bad guys (the Senator Palpatine who everyone thinks is fighting for justice-turned-Darth Sidious character). How can we properly highlight that Liberal Democrats are the ones who want meaningful change to a system that often doesn't work for people (not the Jedi who end up being swallowed by the Sith (Labour Party?) but the Leias of the world, leading the rebels against the Empire).

2. Stress points:

This is a good positive narrative for Liberalism (as you've said is the point of this post!). However, how does it stand up to stress points? Jedis are not permitted possessive love, but when Anakin ends up losing his mother and wife, he ends up as a conquerer of the solar system... Agreed, that was a terrible analogy, but hopefully points out that an idea, good as it may sound, is not worth much if it falls at the first hurdle.

What does this vision tell the average Joe who is worried about immigration? Or the average Jane who is afraid of the impact of taxes on their wealth? Would our response lead to trade-offs and are we prepared for those? (Perhaps a question for another paper, and not the aim of this narrative, but in an ideal scenario, our narrative would need to offer some perspective on these increasingly important issues, that are increasingly coming up on the doorstep)

3. Realism:

The 2024 General Election had little realism in it. Conservatives continued defending policies that quite literally had been failing for the past 5 years. Labour refused to acknowledge the reality of the monumental task they faced to clean up the conservatives' mess. Reform UK and the Green Party both had policies that were estimated to require £80bn+ in borrowing (Liz Truss 'only' borrowed £30bn in her economy-crashing budget).

Whilst Liberal Democrats understand the need for realism, especially considering our potential role in politics following the next GE, are voters actually motivated by/interested in realism? and if they are not, is it therefore more of a grey area (ie can political parties dream a little?). Of course, this is not suggesting mistruth or misleading, but an ambitious statement like 'Liberal Democrats will bring net zero to 2040' or 'Liberal Democrats will lead a generation of the most educated children in the world' might be exactly what the country is looking for, difficult as it may be (I'm not sufficiently expert in climate or education policy to know whether that is, at all, a realistic/unrealistic ambition).

All that to say, might it be worth revisiting your 5th 'success criteria' (from your brief), and seeing how that affects the rest of this article?

Otherwise, great post! Without doubt, I will return to these three points soon and realise that I was, myself, speaking nonsense, so please feel free to push back on anything ahead of me!

Expand full comment
Dennis's avatar

That's a great idea, but how would it be different from Compass, for example? They strategise how progressive parties can win elections. I guess they're not too focused on measuring public opinion or creating a platform for deliberative democracy and evidence-based discussions. The reality is that politics will always have subjective elements which isn't a bad thing by any means but I think we'd all benefit more if we looked at statistics to make sense of the world - whether that's house building or drug use. Thanks for sharing! :)

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts