The election of Ed Davey shows the Lib Dems are happy being a centrist party

Ed Davey has been elected the new Lib Dem leader. The man who previously lost in a runoff to Jo Swinson (remember when the chronically misinformed thought that she would be the next Prime Minister?) is now in charge of Britain’s third party and, who knows, might one day be the doormat junior partner in a coalition government. Although he’s more likely to be remembered the same way the last four Lib Dem leaders are, as hardly worthy of a footnote in history. 

What can we learn from Davey’s victory? We can infer that the Lib Dem’s members are happy with their party being thought of as in the middle of the political spectrum. Their hope is that, as Labour have become more left-wing in recent years and the Tories have become more right-wing, they can win over more voters who feel abandoned in the centre.

Leaving Brexit behind

It also shows that they are moving away from an ultra-Remain position and returning to the Nick Clegg era of appealing to centrists. During the years of uncertainty over Brexit, the Lib Dems adopted the extreme position of stopping Brexit without another referendum if they became the government.

I call this extreme because it’s anti-democratic, as it’s possible to have a stable majority government with around a third of the vote, as Labour managed in 2005 when Tony Blair won 403 seats with 35.2% of votes cast. This Brexit stance was so extreme that I’m surprised that it didn’t receive more criticism. I’m also surprised that it was taken as a serious possibility by anyone.

The road not chosen

To win the unenviable position of being Lib Dem leader, Davey had to beat Layla Moran who, had she been chosen as leader, would have indicated that the Lib Dems wanted to attack Labour from the left, perhaps in a return to the Charles Kennedy days when the Lib Dems were more radical than Labour on some issues.

The argument is that Labour cannot afford to be too socially liberal. Having a metropolitan, middle-class position on issues such as patriotism and identity, and not connecting with how the majority of the country saw these issues, was seen as a major failure of Jeremy Corbyn. If Keir Starmer wants to win back the Red Wall voters who switched to the Conservatives in 2019, then he may need to at least pay lip service to views on these issues that will put him at odds with the average young, middle-class city dweller.

A left-wing culture war?

Had Moran won, it would raise an interesting question: do the Lib Dems think they could start a culture war from the left? Could they adopt positions on statue removal or defunding the police that are to the left of where the general public are, but in line with the social values of the average Corbyn supporting Labour voter? Would attempts lure away young voters put pressure on Kier Starmer, who has to walk an awkward tightrope of trying to keep both socially liberal and socially conservative Labour voters happy?

I think this was unlikely to work. One reason why the right-wing culture war has been so successful is that right-wing newspapers and right-wing social media pick up any story that could enrage social conservatives and amplify it until leading politicians have to respond. I think the Lib Dems will be unwilling to find many publications willing to support this.

Even the left-leaning media in Britain is not sympathetic enough to the rights of trans-people, ethnic minorities or the young to give a left-wing culture war the energy it needs to succeed. Nor are they ideologically committed enough to the Liberal Democrats (or Labour for that matter) to consistently amplify stories that are useful to them.

Happy in the centre

Also, the Lib Dems tried the approach of adopting a position out of step with the majority, but highly in line with young social liberals, on Brexit and it didn’t work. Mainly because their record in the coalition still makes them toxic to these voters. This approach failed even when supported by a left-leaning media that was in favour of stopping Brexit.

Being in the middle makes more sense for the Lib Dems. In 2019 they came second in many Labour and Tory seats and are unlikely to win back the young any time soon. Choosing Davey as a leader and adopting this positioning makes sense.

Two Sirs and Boris Johnson

I don’t think Keir Starmer or Boris Johnson will be losing any sleep now that Ed Davey has become Lib Dem leader. He isn’t a threat to either of them. Although Boris Johnson must be annoyed that both opposition leaders are Knights and he’s not.

If the Lib Dems think there are loads of centrist voters to win over, and that will propel them back to the level where they can sell out all their values to the Tories for another electoral reform referendum that will be lost, then good luck to them. I don’t think this centre ground exists or is stable enough to achieve this, but I have been wrong in the past.

Broadly, I don’t see much changing from the Lib Dems. Moran would have certainly been a more interesting choice for leader, but perhaps a period of stability with clearly defined left, right and centre parties is what the country needs after three years of slow-motion chaos.

"ed davey speech 01" by Liberal Democrats is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

Are liberals liberal when they’re being liberal?

Are liberals really liberal? Are the tolerant so tolerant that they are intolerant of the intolerant? What does liberal even mean? It’s become a catch-all term for everyone on the left side of the political culture war. It covers everyone from John Loch to Hillary Clinton. Even a socialist like Jeremy Corbyn is simultaneously criticised for being far left and only appealing to metropolitan liberals. We’re all obsessed with liberals, but what even is liberalism?

Tim Farron might know, he led the Liberal Democrats, and he thinks that liberals aren’t very liberal anymore. His evidence is that liberals have “discarded” Christianity and “kick away the foundations of liberalism,” but have liberals really become so illiberal?

It is true that the Liberal Democrats didn’t do as well in the 2017 election has you might have expected. A significant proportion of the 48% remain vote went to Labour, whose stance on Brexit (although vague) is that it should proceed. Why didn’t these voters all go to the Lib Dems as the most pro-EU party? Is it because these liberal Remainers couldn’t stomach voting for a party led by an evangelical Christian? Did pro-leave Corbyn appeal more liberal remain voters?

I don’t want to be drawn into the debate on what Tim Farron thinks about gay marriage. What does appear to be the case is that, in choosing an evangelical Christian as their leader, the Lib Dems sent a signal that metropolitan liberal voters didn’t like and this partly the reason for Lib Dems poor performance. Politics is about tribal identity and evangelical Christianity doesn’t seem to be compatible with the metropolitan liberal identity. On some level I feel sorry for Tim Farron as none of this is his fault and is partly based on a stereotype that evangelicals are illiberal.

In Farron’s Guardian article there are moments when he does send signals that are clearly off-putting to metropolitan liberals and they are nothing to do with his views on same-sex marriage. Speaking as a metropolitan liberal (London-living, pro-EU, pro-immigration, etc) a key part of the liberal identify is defending 21st century modernity. In his article he says: “five minutes on social media will give you a window into a society that condemns and judge” and “five minutes in the high street, now in the run-up to Christmas, will show you a society hooked on materialism.”

This sounds like a criticism of modernity. Does Farron think that we were better off in the past where also everyone was Christian by default? If you judge modern society via what you see on social media you’d think everyone’s life is a well-lit romp through artisan coffee shops, eating avocado on toast, before cuddling kittens and trying on new hats. When actually really life is a washed-out grey, spirit crushing, grind.

What Farron describes above is how most metropolitan liberals live. We’re social media obsessed, materialistic and happy with it. Even I couldn't resist getting a Google home. It sounds like Farron wants things to change. People to the left of liberals want it to change too, and they have their symbol of change in Jeremy Corbyn. Conservatives to the right of liberals also want to this to change. But liberals are comfortable with 21st century modernity even if Farron isn’t.

Being a liberal is more than being a “metropolitan liberal”. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines liberalism as: “political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics”. By this definition have liberals stopped being liberal? Have any of Farron’s rights been taken away? Is anyone stopping him from being a Christian or practicing his religion in anyway?

Farron’s faith didn’t stop him becoming the leader of a major political party. He claims to not be part of the establishment, saying: “whereas I am a liberal, but do not feel part of the elite,” but he was part of the elite as a major party leader and his faith didn’t prevent this.

Is Farron complaining about the fact that Christiny isn’t as popular as it once was? The number of people who are Christian has been decreasing for a while, the proportion of people who describe themselves as Anglican has halved since 1983. I would like to remind Farron that there is no right to be popular.

The fact that your religion and your party is not popular is not an infringement of your rights. Being a Christian or being a Lib Dem is a minority opinion, and the right to minority opinions should be protected, but you have no right to demand that your opinion be that of the majority. Even if you think everyone would better off.

I don’t think Farron’s rights are being oppressed. I don’t think being a Christian or being a Lib Dem makes you a victimised minority, despite the fact that people feel more comfortable making fun of Christianity now than they did in the past. The odd sausage roll joke isn’t the same as having your rights taken away. It’s just not being held in the same reverence that you once were.

If any faith has a fair claim that it is stigmatised or treated with hostility, then it is Islam. Even from people who consider themselves to be liberals, I have heard blanket statements of suspicion about Muslim communities or objections to the number of Muslim refugees allowed into Europe. Five minutes on social media will give you a window into a society that is angry at and frightened of Islam. A 2016 ComRes report found that 43% of people surveyed agreed with the statement “Islam is a negative force in the UK”. 

Liberals don’t talk about Christianity the way they talk about Muslims. Farron is fostering a sense of grievance amongst Christians that has little basis in fact. Christians are not treated with hostility and suspicion. The Prime Minister is a Christian. Christians are not oppressed in this country. Not by liberals or anyone else. Farron also shows no concern about prejudice against other people’s faiths, such as Islamophobia or rising anti-semitism.

If you are worried about how liberal or tolerant a society we are, worry about how we treat people who look different to the majority. Not how we treat people who look like the majority of people, get to lead major political parties and get to publish articles in national newspapers.

Tim Farron image taken by David Spender and used under creative commons.