Open Borders

Former Liberal Democrat councillor DR RICHARD HUZZEY sees a bright future for his party

It's become a cliché to say "three-party politics is here to stay" when opponents or the media declare that liberalism is returning to its post-1918 doldrums. In fact, we have begun to see a much more important change in British politics: the end of our current party system altogether. The Social Democrats made the promise of "breaking the mould2 when they split from Labour in 1981, and that catchphrase endured during their alliance and then merger with the Liberal party. Maybe it hasn't been the actions of Liberal Democrat politicians have directly cracked "the mould", but the strain is evident from some force or other.

As the century-long party alignment crumbles, there could be a huge opportunity for the Liberal Democrats in twenty-first century politics. The politics of class are dying; it seems likely to me that some other axis of politics is now emerging. It is striking how similar New Labour and Cameron's Conservatives have become. In some ways, a convergence of party politics on the centre-ground (whatever that is) should be bad for the Liberals, if that's where we are (as conventional wisdom dictates). But that holds true only if the party is still seen as just a "sensible medium" between state socialism and Tory heartlessness, as it might have been by earlier generations.

Today, British politics has two managerial parties, tinkering with a consensus system and bidding for the contract to administer Britain for another Parliament. In part, this is because there's some public consensus over what we want in life: most Britons want good healthcare and education, low crime and to pay as little as possible for it. But it's more because politics, in a mass-media age, easily hinges about faces, voices and cosmetic impressions rather than issues. There's also some fault (and I know I'm playing to the Lib Dem stereotype here) in the voting system, which gives disproportionate power to a small number of voters in a small number of swing seats.

I would contend that a huge potential exists for a party which offers a radically different model of politics. The Liberal Democrats could thrive in a battleground based on a new politics of values. The "radical centre" - Paddy Ashdown's phrase - nicely describes that tone. But it's essentially a bit woolly, and can mean what you want it to mean. Opponents frequently dismiss the Liberal Democrats as a rag-tag band of concerned busy-bodies, united by no definable ideology. This comes partly from holding the party to a higher standard than its rivals - can anyone really explain what now defines a Tory and what defines a Labourite? (In reality, it's probably their attitude to Europe, but is that really the only fault line on which our parties should and can divide?).

As much as some of this is unfair, there's truth in saying that the public don't instinctively "feel" what the Lib Dems are about. The party re-emerged over the last sixty years on the basis of isolated, local campaigns often based around celebrity MPs. At council level, where the third party has thrived, victories were forged on the 'community politics' of fixing potholes, clearing drains and regularly picking up local problems. It's been good for British politics - as Labour and Tory representatives have felt the competition and raised their game - but it isn't the basis on which to build a proper political party. I would argue that there has been a big idea running through the party's slow and tentative re-emergence, though.

The real challenge for Nick Clegg - taking over what The Observer dubbed "the worst job in politics" - is to articulate that more clearly. This doesn't mean lecturing about a wonky philosophy; it just means communicating a clear idea of what the Liberal Democrats stand for - what 'liberalism' makes you feel in your gut. The ideology's already there in J.S. Mill: if pressed to sum it up, I'd say it was about people being in control of their own lives, with the maximum choice to do what they wish. The preface to the party constitution, printed on every membership card, puts it nicely: "we champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity". On specific issues, I think this means having the bravery to lead - not follow - public opinion on key issues. The conceit of modern politics is that politicians reflect back to the electorate their concerns, empathising. While electoral success will only ever come from being relevant to voters, many Britons are eager to hear new solutions for their anxieties.

Take immigration, for example. After decades of Labour, Tory and tabloid bile attacking immigrants, a MORI poll three months ago showed 48% to 36% of people think they have been more good than bad for the country. You wouldn't think this from the unpleasant auction between Labour and the Tories, seeing who can come closest to the BNP in their rhetoric against immigrations. The Liberal Democrats should be proud to defend immigration and attack the government for failing to mitigate its negative externalities (such as acute shortages of housing or amenities in some areas).

On issues like the Iraq war and ID cards, we've seen public opinion change to move from support to hostility. Aside from the fact that a political party untrue to its principles is a waste of time, this says something important about strategy. Nick Clegg should be bold about taking the public out of its comfort zone, and showing that he can win arguments rather than follow focus groups. In the recent leadership contest, he promised it would be the party he'd take out of its comfort zone. When it comes to professionalizing it, and demanding credible costings on policy proposals, he's right. But while we should talk about the issues that concern voters, we shouldn't be afraid to offer new solutions, rather than repackage the Labour-Tory consensus. The public are ready for something different. The lesson of Ming Campbell's leadership was that we can only perish as part of the establishment.

Maybe in this I'm a hopeless romantic, but I think the public still value authenticity over familiarity in politics - they'll reject the Ratner's they're currently being offered. No more is this true than with regard to the environment. The Liberal Democrats need to continue to establish themselves as the only party with serious, dedicated proposals for curbing carbon dioxide emissions in Britain and around the globe. The blueprint for a zero-carbon Britain is an example of this (and a stark contrast to the hair-shirt environmentalism of the Greens). Sure, carbon taxes will mean annoying some motorists in the short-term. But offering realistic market incentives for greening our economy is a cause that the public can be convinced of.

So far I've argued what positions and policies the Liberal Democrats should hold to. Aside these questions is the elephant in the room: the issue of parliamentary tactics in the event of a hung parliament. The bigger the third party grows, the less likely it is that either of the other two can win a majority of seats. In this way, the two-party system is broken. But it sets a trap for a Liberal Democrat leader, who risks supporting either party in power. Coalition partners tend to get tainted with the bad and isolated from the good news.

It has been a Lib Dem formula - and one repeated by Nick Clegg last year - that it's too early to talk about coalitions. The party, they say, would look at the situation it was in and behave accordingly. I don't think this will end the constant attempts to discern which way Clegg would go in a hung parliament. And I am certain that supporting either one or the other would be a mistake. My strong preference is to rule out a formal coalition now (unless electoral reform was offered, which would change the rules of the game forever), and just look to work on a case-by-case basis with any government. The party would vote for and against legislation on principle, as it does now.

On that basis, I think the party's future can be bright. The essence lies in remaining a radical but trustworthy party, uniquely committed to demolishing uneven distributions of power wherever they may occur. Now, no laughing at the back: I hope to see a Liberal government before I die, and I think I just might. Liberal Democrats shouldn't return to their constituencies to prepare for it just yet, but they can look to foundations, in coming years, of a resurgence of Britain's original progressive party.

At time of writing Richard Huzzey was a city councillor for the Liberal Democrats in Oxford. He is now a post-doctoral research fellow at Yale University.