Browse > Home / Liberal Democrats / What the hell is “muscular liberalism” when it’s at home?

| Subcribe via RSS

What the hell is “muscular liberalism” when it’s at home?

May 12th, 2011 Posted in Liberal Democrats by

Liberal Democrats are living in dangerous times. Having taken a battering in the local elections and having lost  the AV vote in humiliating circumstances , I am sure that many headless chickens will be found clucking their way round the leader right now. And there is a danger that their squawking will both drown out the reasonable and distract the rational.  The squawkers will be advising on a new plan , a change of direction, a more muscular liberalism. The rational know that this is categorically NOT the time to shift direction, to move from collaborative politics to confrontational, from the selfless party, that put the country first, to the self-seeking petulant party. The rational will be saying it is, instead, time to shift gear.

Sadly it seems unlikely that those in charge of Lib Dem strategic communications will grasp this any time soon. They were singularly unable to capitalise on the Cleggmania of just over a year ago… sitting back and basking in the glory of unprecedented poll ratings, rather than doing anything meaningful to capitalise on Nick’s leadership debate performances, or move the party narrative forward. So they “stuck to their plan” and watched their fabulous poll ratings melt into disappointing election results. Arrogance or incompetence or both ?

They showed similar , if not greater, incompetance during the AV campaign – despite – as I have subsequently learned – an ongoing chorus of cries from those on the ground attempting to implement their shockingly bad campaign.Yet again they “stuck to their plan” regardless of the advice being given from all directions to change it.  Arrogance or incompetence or both?

Which ever it is, it is time for a clear out. Now is the time for Nick to get rid of the hangers on and incompetents that surround him, many of whom, frankly, have ridden on his coat tails for far too long.  No matter how much money they gave to his leadership campaign. No matter how much they may have supported him “on the way up”. No matter how good they once were. They have to go. Of course he can still invite them for Sunday lunch or summer barbecues but they have no place advising him on strategy or comms. They have been a disaster. That much has been proven.  

For there is nothing to suggest that those that have the leaders ear on comms have learned any lessons and will somehow magically get it right this time. Nick, (whose choice of the term “muscular liberalism” is about as dire as “alarm clock Britain”), seems to be in danger of being led down the wrong route again. I agree of course with the notion that the Liberals should be a distinctive force within the coalition (we have said as much here on LV many times) … but his emphasis seems to be  about “listing how his party has stopped a string of flagship Tory policies” and “having a larger say” in government. Is it really true that we need a larger say? A post on LV just a few days ago pointed out that, “according to the BBC …75% of the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto (has been) implemented, with the Conservatives having only implemented 60% of theirs” .

No. We don’t need a larger say. We just have to get better at comms. Plain and simple. We need a louder, more effective, more consistent collective voice highlighting our plans and celebrating our successes (and not define success only in terms of stopping the Tory ones) . Look for example at our plans (and future wins we hope) for small business. How much did we hear about what Ed Davey has done – leading the fight in Europe on ludicrous maternity laws  .. How much do we talk about Ed’s plans to reduce employment red tape that, if implemented, will see sweeping pro-growth reforms to redundancy, tribunal and TUPE rules…What about Vince Cables announcement that he will review almost 22,000 business regulations with a challenge to Whitehall to justify those causing most problems.. or his proposal for a three-year moratorium on all new domestic rules for firms with fewer than 10 staff. That’s the stuff we are just not getting across. 

Please let us not forget that  Guardian/ICM Poll in March showed that whilst 35% of the nation believed the cuts are too severe, (down from 45% last November) , 28% believed the Coalition has got it right on cuts and another 29% thought the govt should cut deeper and faster.  People actually acknowledge the cuts are necessary (what ever Lib Dem activists might want to believe) and want the things that the likes of Ed and Vince are doing. That is what we should be talking about. 

Talk of “muscular liberalism” will switch the voters off – its just more “political speak” . We should be focusing on telling people how we are helping to make their lives better.And if we do want “muscular liberalism” then the form it should take is stopping George Osborne taking all the credit for Ed Daveys work – because looking at the news coverage you would think it was Osborne’s sweat and toil all over the consultation document on employment law reforms rather than Ed’s. No surprise then that people can’t see the point of the Liberals.

Sadly the comms people don’t seem to be able to see it either.  Only a few weeks ago their answer to the party’s poor poll ratings was to “rebrand” . Yep – that’s right – it’s not your fault – blame the bird. If only we were a better shade of turquoise/aquamarine/ochre… all would be well. Yeah right.

Nick has shown courage and conviction through out – it’s time for another dose of it. We don’t need a new logo, we don’t need to change direction, we just need some sane folks put in charge of comms.

3 Responses to “What the hell is “muscular liberalism” when it’s at home?”

  1. Psi Says:

    I would describe the comms strategy as needing to be simpler and focused.

    I agree not describing everything in comparison with the Tories but by pick areas a focus on them, to the point where people are bored of hearing about them, then they will stick in the memory. Not flitting about commenting on every area, constantly.

  2. Tabman Says:

    Talk about the Liberal things we are doing. End of.

  3. Insider Says:

    “They showed similar , if not greater, incompetance during the AV campaign – despite – as I have subsequently learned – an ongoing chorus of cries from those on the ground attempting to implement their shockingly bad campaign.Yet again they “stuck to their plan” regardless of the advice being given from all directions to change it. Arrogance or incompetence or both?”

    This is only partially true. The chorus of cries wasn’t just on the ground – it went right up to the very top of the organization.

    Lord Sharkey was continually told the following:

    – not to read too much into early polling (he believed that the polling in November/December showed that we were certain to win)
    – that message development and testing hadn’t been completed
    – that you cannot run a major national political campaign without tracking polls and focus groups
    – reactive attacks (e.g. the ASA complaint) would play into No2AV’s hands and cost us support in the lobby
    – our celebrity supporters were not diverse enough, and were not suitable for the direct mail
    – turnout would be higher than expected
    – key staff (e.g. our monumentally self-centred and lazy fundraiser Pam Giddy) were not achieving anything, and needed to be replaced
    – that our ‘high-vis’ ground activities weren’t vote winners, and we needed a proper local press strategy
    – that the chain of command was too secretive, negatively affecting decision-making and damaging staff morale

    Many of the problems experienced on the ground have been blamed on “central office” staff. The truth is that they should be blamed on one man alone – Lord (John) Sharkey – whose main goal throughout the campaign was to keep Cowley St convinced that we had a chance of winning, and that he knew what he was doing.

    The truth is that there were several attempts to get rid of him. The most shameful was a potential donation of £250,000 plus staff and advertising from James Palumbo, on condition that Sharkey stepped down. He refused, and the donation never came.

    Lord Sharkey should renounce his peerage. He has done serious damage to the Lib Dem brand in two elections. In both cases he believed that hype and spin were more important than votes. He doesn’t understand politics, and he treats people like shit. Working for him was a disheartening experience for most of the staff in central office. He made unrealistic/pointless demands of people, ignored important requests, refused to take advice, overpromoted his cronies, and prioritised his own job preservation over the success of the campaign.

    Loyalty is important in politics, and many of the people involved in the campaign remained loyal to Lord Sharkey because they felt disunity would damage the campaign. Some of these people are now, unfortunately, taking the flak for decisions that were forced upon them by this monumentally incompetent charlatan of a man. The truth will out.