tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/tim-farron-16828/articlesTim Farron – The Conversation2017-06-20T12:14:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/795472017-06-20T12:14:26Z2017-06-20T12:14:26ZTim Farron showed religion could have a place in British politics<p>After gaining ground in a general election, a leader does not usually step aside. But Liberal Democrat Tim Farron did. He <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/tim-farron-quits-as-lib-dem-leader">chose to leave</a> because he found himself “torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader”. </p>
<p>Farron’s religious views were closely scrutinised during the election campaign, like no other politician’s were. He was repeatedly questioned about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/tim-farron-avoids-saying-whether-he-sees-gay-sex-as-a-sin">his views on homosexuality</a>, for example, following reports that he had in the past failed to explicitly deny that he considered gay sex sinful.</p>
<p><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/public-reason/">Many liberals</a> argue that politicians and public officials should be free to express their religious views and values in public. That is as long as they ultimately justify their political decisions based on reasons that all citizens – not only religious ones – can accept.</p>
<p>I <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/partisanship-and-political-liberalism-in-diverse-societies-9780198739500?cc=gb&lang=en&">agree, and also believe</a> that partisans like Farron are always inevitably torn between two very different kinds of commitments. This is due to their unique position halfway between the state and civil society. </p>
<p>On the one hand, like other public officials, politicians (and especially party leaders) must commit to the general interest and the common good. This is because their ability to affect decision-making, especially if they are elected to power, will have an effect on the whole of society, not just on a part of it. On the other hand, politicians must respond to their voters’ views and values, which will often reflect partial, rather than general, interests. </p>
<h2>Responsible partisanship</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/blog/live/2017/jun/14/david-cameron-suggests-softer-brexit-as-may-weighs-options-politics-live">his resignation speech</a>, Farron explicitly rejected the kind of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/theocracy">theocratic politics</a> that aims to impose sectarian religious views on the whole of society, rather than promoting the general interest and the common good. </p>
<p>“There are Christians in politics,” Farron argued, “who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society. But I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it – it’s not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.” </p>
<p>Farron’s political record, including his support <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Tim_Farron&mpc=Westmorland_and_Lonsdale&house=commons&dmp=6686">for same sex marriage legislation</a>, shows that he has generally complied with this vision. His Christianity does not seem to have interfered with his ability to respond to the interests and values of Liberal Democrat voters – among whom there will be gay people, as well as many non-Christians and atheists. </p>
<p>So was it right for Farron’s views to be scrutinised to such an extent that he felt “torn between” politics and religion? If the scrutiny had been directed at his religious views, there would have been nothing wrong with it. In a liberal society, citizens should be free to respectfully challenge others’ views, religious or not. </p>
<p>However, the criticism directed at Farron as a politician and, more specifically, as a partisan leader, seems unfair. Farron’s religion did not prevent him from being loyal both to the general interest and to his voters.</p>
<p>It may be that scrutiny during the election campaign only made Farron more aware of an already existing tension between his religious and political views. But this too is something we shouldn’t – and probably can’t – avoid in a liberal democracy. A religious person’s decision to engage in party politics is a voluntary choice. Anyone who enters party politics should know that they will inevitably experience some tension between their private views and their public duties.</p>
<p>Perhaps, however, the problem is more general. If there were a greater variety of political parties in the UK, one might argue, religious citizens like Farron would be able to find a more suitable party in which they could experience a lesser tension between their political and religious views. </p>
<p>Indeed for some it was strange that Farron
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/christian-it-was-tim-farron-s-religion-that-was-the-problem-not-other-people-s-attitude-to-it-a7790596.html">chose the Lib Dems</a> – but what other party could he have chosen? What other party can a religious citizen join in the UK, if they wish to have a potential impact on decision-making and do not agree with any of the three major parties’ political platforms? In other European countries, for example, Christian Democratic parties such as Germany’s <a href="https://www.cdu.de/">Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands</a> and Italy’s former <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/20/world/italy-s-christian-democrats-renamed-seek-popularity.html">Democrazia Cristiana</a> have allowed many religious citizens to combine their political and religious views when participating in party politics. </p>
<p>The lack of a major Christian Democratic party and, more generally, of a sufficiently diverse party system in the UK, may actually be a substantial obstacle to many citzens’ ability to participate in party politics. But this problem, and the question of how it could be resolved, is a topic to be examined elsewhere.</p>
<p>For now, one thing is clear: Farron’s religion should never have been the reason he felt compelled to leave his role as Liberal Democrat leader.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matteo Bonotti's book Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies will be published by Oxford University Press in July 2017.</span></em></p>Religious and political tension should not have been a reason for the Lib Dem leader to quit.Matteo Bonotti, Lecturer in Political Theory, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/771312017-05-17T14:38:56Z2017-05-17T14:38:56ZLib Dem manifesto – who is it for exactly?<p>The 2015 general election left the Liberal Democrats on a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32633462">precipice</a>. The party was reduced to just eight MPs, a much shrunken local government base, and had been dethroned from its traditional position as the third party of British politics.</p>
<p>Since then, it has been seeking a way back to its post-1997, pre-2010 levels of support, and the result of the EU referendum in 2016 seemed to offer just that. By speaking out for a <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21721211-their-campaign-will-benefit-rapidly-growing-party-membership-lib-dems-will-focus">pro-European Union perspective</a>, a position the Liberal Democrats had long held as a party, they hoped to build support among voters who had opted for Remain.</p>
<p>An early general election poses a major problem for the party – it’s too soon to have had a chance to shake off the negative legacy of coalition with the Conservatives, and too soon to see how the government’s negotiating strategy for leaving the EU will play out.</p>
<p>The party manifesto for the June 2017 election tries to offer the electorate policies that will overcome these twin pressures. It also seeks to give the party something to build on before the next general election, which is expected to be held in 2022, after the UK has left the EU. Perhaps understandably, it seeks to limit the ambition of the party to being a stronger opposition, rather than seeking to enter government. Indeed, it explicitly rules out a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour.</p>
<h2>The big issues</h2>
<p>There is a twin track offer on Brexit in this manifesto. On the one hand, during the negotiations, the Liberal Democrats will campaign for Britain to remain in the single market. On the other, the party wants to offer a referendum on the final deal, with an option to remain in the European Union on the ballot paper.</p>
<p>Clearly, the party hopes to appeal to Remainers with this strategy but it is doubtless also hoping that, by laying out an alternative Brexit strategy, it can also appeal to Leave voters who don’t want a dramatic change in the UK’s relationship with Europe. It is an effort at triangulation – and it may prove to be too clever by half.</p>
<p>Beyond Brexit, the manifesto commits to higher spending on health, education and welfare. This change of direction is underwritten in particular by a promise to raise income tax by a penny in the pound at every level. An extra £6 billion would be spent on health and an extra £7 billion on education. Within these areas, the party places the greatest emphasis on mental health, social care, early years education, and the schools budget.</p>
<h2>Target audience</h2>
<p>The Liberal Democrats have traditionally enjoyed strong support among public sector workers – these policies, coupled with their pledge to allow public sector pay to increase at above the current rate of 1% a year, clearly aim to restore their appeal to those voters. </p>
<p>Young voters are another clear target in the manifesto. The promise to legalise and regulate the sale of cannabis has drawn significant attention already but the goal of building 300,000 homes a year by 2022 will have a strong appeal for voters who feel locked out of the housing market. We should also include the policy on Brexit, which was strongly opposed by younger voters in the referendum, as part of this pitch.</p>
<p>Each UK election brings with it a call for young people to vote – and, without fail, each UK election so far has failed to see this call translate into dramatically higher turnout among younger voters. While the Liberal Democrats have clearly identified younger voters as more receptive to their message of change, it is an electorally risky strategy to adopt.</p>
<p>The problem is compounded by the fact that party leader Tim Farron has faced intense criticism for his position on <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/04/election-2017-what-tim-farron-s-stance-gay-rights-and-should-you-vote-lib">social issues</a>, and simply has not been received well by voters as a whole. Young voters are also being targeted heavily by Labour as it tries to fight the Conservatives.</p>
<p>There are a great many forces pressing on the Liberal Democrats in this election. With the legacy of the coalition hanging over them, Brexit still incomplete, and a leader who is not resonating with the public, the party will surely hope that this manifesto gives them the ammunition they need to advance on their 2015 position.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77131/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy Oliver is affiliated with the Liberal Democrats, as a member and having served on the party's working group on nuclear weapons. </span></em></p>Brexit is the big ticket issue, but other pledges make it clear who the party is wooing.Timothy Oliver, Lecturer in Politics, University of HullLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/769602017-05-03T10:29:03Z2017-05-03T10:29:03ZWhy Theresa May seems so rattled by the Liberal Democrats<p>Prime Minister Theresa May first crossed swords with Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron in 1992. Both were contesting the constituency of North West Durham unsuccessfully. Now, 25 years later, May has called a snap election. She is showing surprising eagerness to revisit a struggle which has been absent from the Tories’ strategy for many years. So why is she so anxious about the Lib Dems?</p>
<p>Under David Cameron, the Conservatives’ approach to the Liberal Democrats fluctuated between co-operation and contempt. Prior to the coalition of 2010, Cameron notoriously described Nick Clegg as “my favourite political joke”. When rehearsing for a pre-election TV debate, Cameron used a junior researcher to play the role of Clegg while an experienced MP represented Gordon Brown. In the real life debate, real life Clegg <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/16/leaders-tv-debates-jonathan-freedland">triumphed</a>. </p>
<p>Warm words were exchanged as Cameron and Clegg entered government together, but the mood had changed by the time of the next election in 2015. The Lib Dems were mentioned only once in the <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">Conservative manifesto</a> for that campaign – and even then it was a dismissive comparison with UKIP. On returning to office at the head of a Conservative government that year, Cameron thanked Clegg on the steps of Downing Street. But he made no mention of his former deputy prime minister’s party, which had shared government with him.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"858924542449909760"}"></div></p>
<p>Theresa May, by contrast, has given the Lib Dems publicity. She says “they want to grind the business of government to a standstill” and has raised the spectre of a “weak and unstable coalition government led by Jeremy Corbyn, propped up by the Liberal Democrats”.</p>
<p>The “coalition of chaos” threat is a return to the Tory strategy of 2015, but this time the Liberal Democrats have earned a place in the rogues’ gallery alongside Labour and the SNP.</p>
<p>Given that, as Jeremy Corbyn pointed out, “there are nine of them and they managed to vote three different ways on Article 50”, it’s odd that the Lib Dems appear to have May so rattled. She seems to be dilating upon the threat they pose and, as Corbyn <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2017-04-19/corbyn-ridicules-lib-dem-prisoner-may-in-election-debate/">mocked</a>, “painting herself as the prisoner of the Lib Dems”.</p>
<h2>Pulling out an old playbook</h2>
<p>May has decided that the Liberal Democrats, with their damaged reputation, limited resources and unashamed Remain agenda, make more convenient opponents than Labour, to whom she is showing some of the neglect Cameron once used against the Lib Dems. In an argument about Europe, the clear line between Farron’s party and the prime minister’s is more likely to drive Leave voters – including previously Labour and UKIP sympathisers – into her arms. The third party is raised up to major player status to stress the contrast between it and the government.</p>
<p>This strategy has a heritage going back as far as Conservative prime minister Harold Macmillan’s first negotiations to get Britain into the European Economic Community against the wishes of his own eurosceptics. In 1962, the Liberal party had captured the safe Tory seat of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/15/newsid_2543000/2543507.stm">Orpington</a> in a by-election similar to the victory they secured in <a href="https://theconversation.com/heathrow-brexit-and-a-pointless-political-suicide-that-richmond-by-election-in-full-69808">Richmond</a> last October. The Conservatives went on the offensive after the loss, seeking to use the Liberals’ reputation to their tactical advantage.</p>
<p>Macmillan and two of his party insiders, John Wyndham and Michael Fraser, conducted a lively correspondence about how the Liberals could be painted as the euro-fanatics and the government as moderate and undogmatic.</p>
<p>After making a speech accusing the Liberal party of jeopardising Commonwealth relations and British agricultural interests in their enthusiasm for the EEC, Macmillan wrote to Wyndham to ask “Would it be worth a private MP doing a letter on these lines?” He added: “It should be easy to show from parliamentary questions and other statements that Liberals have wanted us really to plunge into the Common Market and showing impatience over the negotiations.” A letter from Conservative MP Anthony Kershaw duly appeared in The Times. Michael Fraser was satisfied that the Liberal leadership had been embarrassed, saying “I do not think they can be very happy about it.”</p>
<p>Successful though this ruse was in reassuring Conservative (and possibly Labour) anti-Europeans that Macmillan was sound in the short term, it fell foul of the law of unintended consequences. The Liberal vote at the subsequent general election nearly doubled to 11.2% and the Conservatives were evicted from office by a margin of less than one percentage point.</p>
<p>Theresa May should therefore beware. In creating political scapegoats to recruit her own supporters, she must also be careful not to make martyrs to win the sympathies of others. Unlikely as it looks at the moment, she would not want another contest like North West Durham in 1992, in which Farron comes third but she also misses the prize.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76960/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Cole does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s a good reason why the PM is acting like a party with only nine MPs is a major threat.Matthew Cole, Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/766232017-04-26T12:30:58Z2017-04-26T12:30:58ZWhy a progressive alliance just doesn’t work in British politics<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-election-2017-37907">election</a> campaign is underway, but with the Conservatives <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/17/conservatives-open-biggest-lead-labour-nine-years-new-poll-shows/">20 points ahead</a> of Labour, things are already looking grim for those on the left of British politics. Labour’s prospects of winning outright look hopeless. Attention is turning towards an idea that has been repeatedly proposed in recent years – a “progressive alliance” of anti-Conservative parties.</p>
<p>The idea is beguilingly simple. The centre-left vote is split between Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. Under the UK’s <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/first-past-the-post">winner-takes-all electoral system</a>, those divisions enable the Conservatives to win seats they might otherwise have lost to a single “progressive” candidate. Therefore, the centre-left parties could win more seats if they explicitly encouraged anti-Conservative tactical voting for whoever had the best chance of defeating the Tory candidate in a given constituency.</p>
<p>This could even entail electoral pacts in some constituencies. Parties that had no chance of winning would stand down to give another progressive party a clear run against the Conservatives. The Greens did this to help the Liberal Democrats in a <a href="http://bright-green.org/2016/11/03/breaking-green-party-will-back-lib-dems-in-richmond/">2016 by-election</a> and some Labour figures wanted to do the same.</p>
<h2>The big problem</h2>
<p>However, calls for a progressive alliance fail to comprehend the contrasting electoral scenarios in Labour-Conservative and Lib Dem-Conservative constituencies. And they overlook the differences voters perceive between the progressive parties.</p>
<p>To see the dangers for progressive parties of electoral pacts, it’s vital to understand that, in the British political system, voters are not only voting for constituency MPs; they are also voting directly for governments. The main option is either a Conservative-led government or a Labour-led government.</p>
<p>Smaller parties must work within these parameters. They might do that by opposing a government led by either major party, or waiting to strike a deal with whichever side offered the best post-election deal. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/liberal-conservative-coalition">Liberal Democrats</a> tried doing that in 2010 and ended up alienating their centre-left supporters by unexpectedly entering a coalition with the Conservatives. The result was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results">almost total annihilation</a> in the next election five years later. </p>
<p>Alternatively, smaller parties may pick a side. For the Greens and the nationalist parties, that means the left. But this raises its own problems. If voters strongly associate a small party with one of the major parties – and an electoral pact or formal call for tactical voting would be a clear signal – they will believe a vote for the small party is effectively a vote for a government led by its proximate major party. Most Green and SNP voters probably prefer a Labour-led government to a Conservative-led one, and that is why those two left-leaning parties have been at the forefront of calls for a “progressive alliance” (particularly in the form of a post-election deal, as far as the SNP is concerned).</p>
<p>The more centrist Liberal Democrats face a harder calculation. An electoral pact could encourage Labour and Green supporters to vote tactically for the party in Conservative-Lib Dem marginals in the south of England, boosting its prospects. On the other hand, centrist voters in those constituencies would believe – and the Conservatives would ram home the message – that a vote for the Lib Dems was a vote for a Labour-led government. That might not be disastrous if Labour were itself centrist and popular, but under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is neither of those two things.</p>
<p>As there are many more centrist voters than left-leaning ones in Tory-Lib Dem marginals, any formal arrangement involving Labour could put these votes at risk for the Liberal Democrats. So while Tim Farron would be delighted to receive tactical votes from Labour supporters in marginal seats, he wants nothing to do with any electoral pact or “progressive alliance” that formally associates his party with Corbyn. The Liberal Democrats prefer instead to remain aloof of both major parties, offering voters the chance to vote for a pro-EU party to oppose the policies of a Conservative government but which will not promise to put Corbyn in Downing Street.</p>
<h2>Remember what happened to Ed</h2>
<p>For Labour, the main danger of a progressive alliance is the SNP. A pact with the nationalists would, for a start, kill off any chance of a Labour revival in Scotland. What more would left-wing voters gain by voting for Labour? It would also risk alienating swing voters in Labour-Conservative English marginal constituencies who dislike the strident separatism of the SNP.</p>
<p>In this case, centrist voters might fear that a vote for Labour would be a vote for Nicola Sturgeon as the puppet-master of a weak Labour government. That was precisely the argument made by the Conservatives in the 2015 election. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader at the time, was depicted in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/09/tory-election-poster-ed-miliband-pocket-snp-alex-salmond">famous poster</a> as being in the pocket of the former SNP first minister, Alex Salmond.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"788458100823101440"}"></div></p>
<p>Interestingly, the poster was deployed in Conservative-Liberal Democrat English marginal seats such as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000644">Colchester</a> in the 2015 election. That was despite Labour not having any chance of winning such seats and the SNP not standing candidates. It made strategic sense because centrist voters were being told that a vote for the Liberal Democrats risked becoming a vote for the broader “progressive alliance”. A daisy-chain of negative images thereby linked the Lib Dems to a weak Labour party and the latter to a belligerent SNP. From this perspective, the only alternative was a majority Conservative government. The Conservatives subsequently won Colchester from the Liberal Democrats, one of 26 English seats they took from the party and which were crucial in delivering their slim overall majority.</p>
<p>The general ideological proximity of progressive parties doesn’t mean they are seen as perfect substitutes by swing voters. Theresa May understands that. Instead of what she called <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/19/nicola-sturgeon-says-snp-will-seek-progressive-alliance-labour/">“a coalition of chaos”</a> involving the centre-left parties, she offers the clarity of a majority Conservative government. If the Conservative prime minister is keen to talk up a “progressive alliance”, that should be warning enough of its inherent dangers for progressive parties.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76623/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Quinn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The particularities of the British electoral system make working together unrealistic.Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/766042017-04-25T10:36:32Z2017-04-25T10:36:32ZA progressive alliance is a once-in-a-generation chance that must be taken in election 2017<p>It’s already becoming clear that every party except the Conservatives fears the outcome of the impending <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-election-2017-37907">general election</a>. Even for the SNP, which will no doubt hold on to – if not improve upon – its standing in the last election, the prospect of an increased Tory majority is not a welcome one.</p>
<p>Barring a massive Labour recovery – and barring the impact of unplanned events, so crucial in politics – it appears this is almost certainly the outcome to expect. But even if that Labour recovery does come, is Jeremy Corbyn the man to steer the UK through <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">Brexit</a> and its consequences?</p>
<p>Whether they like it or not, for most voters, this election will come down to a choice between Corbyn and May, rather than their parties. And the sad truth is, many may find themselves in the unwelcome position of believing that neither is the leader the UK needs.</p>
<p>Danger ahead, then, in GE2017, for an already badly tarnished political class. Turning out for the third major national vote in two years is tiring enough for those people who are just carrying on with the crucial business of getting on with their lives; asking those same people to turn out to vote for two options they find equally unpalatable is worse still. It could cause lasting damage to relations between voters and the political class.</p>
<p>So what’s to be done to reengage people? With appetite for this election seemingly so low, and with the outcome already near certain, the first thing we must do is view the present situation as an opportunity to renew the business of politics in the UK. GE2017 should be seen as nothing short of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to break out of the Labour-Tory duopoly that the nation has clearly outgrown.</p>
<p>Discussions among some of the smaller parties have already turned to this. The Greens have called for a “progressive alliance” between those parties lined up to oppose the Tories and their Brexit at all costs. Even the SNP has <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/nicola-sturgeon-general-election-snp-progressive-alliance-tories-conservatives-out-power-labour-a7691186.html">nodded assent</a> if it were to become a realistic option. Labour leaders have discounted it fully. But they should reconsider.</p>
<p>The finer details of what this would entail (including tactical voting and electoral pacts) will take many hours, days and weeks of negotiation to flesh out, including the thorny issue of who would lead this alliance were it to somehow secure a big parliamentary role after the election. But that is highly unlikely, and therefore should not be the primary concern. The first thing to consider should be the process of putting this alliance together. Here are some essential ingredients we would need at the start.</p>
<h2>A long-term vision</h2>
<p>A progressive alliance is not just for GE2017 – it’s for life. The parties need to see this as more than just a short-term project. The shifts in the electoral landscape of the UK in recent years mean that the likelihood of an outright majority for the main party of the left is receding into the distance. The shift to the SNP in Scotland – formerly rich hunting ground for Labour – and the rise of UKIP as an alternative for swing voters in formerly marginal seats has dealt the Labour party a blow that may ultimately prove fatal.</p>
<p>The likelihood of ever-increasing Tory majorities is also growing as a result of an ageing population and an ever-more disenfranchised youth vote (coupled with upcoming boundary changes). The plan for a progressive alliance forged in the white heat of GE2017 should explicitly be about challenging this growing rightist, Tory hegemony. And the parties and politicians involved should say so.</p>
<p>They should point to a new, long-term political grouping on the left that will more closely match a deindustrialised, multi-cultural Britain; that will more accurately appraise the place of Britain in the world and its responsibilities to other nations and the international community; that will not just celebrate membership of the EU but celebrate European history and identity, too; that will put electoral reform at the heart of its manifesto; and, perhaps most importantly of all, that will put the impending ecological crisis at the very centre of political life. </p>
<h2>Bravery</h2>
<p>To make all of this happen, however, a further ingredient is necessary – and that’s bravery. This may sound gallant and overblown, but far from it. To call for some of the things above is to go against the political advice from strategists that has held sway for at least the past 40 years.</p>
<p>All of the above have consistently been sold as vote losers, if not electoral suicide. Never make the case for the EU and its attendant loss of national sovereignty; never go into an election talking of electoral reform; never remind voters of the environmental damage associated with their lifestyles. If you do, conventional political wisdom has it, you will turn voters off, and lose badly.</p>
<p>But this kind of advice is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you accept the central premise of this stuff, that these issues are vote losers, and then try to sell them in an election, then yes, you are doomed from the outset.</p>
<p>However, if your starting point is that the positions above are fine positions for a mature, 21st century democracy, then there is so much more to sell to the electorate in each of them – so much to sell in membership of the European Union and European identity itself, and in electoral reform (that is, in essentially making people’s votes actually count for something). And while it might not be a popular thing to say right now, there is so much to sell about globalisation, about opening up to different cultures and nationalities from around the world. And there is certainly a lot more to sell in the rewards of leading a greener life.</p>
<p>But when do we see mainstream politicians championing any of these things? I can count on one hand the politicians who, in my lifetime, have proudly championed the European Union. And, apart from the <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/alternative-vote-liberal">Liberal Democrats</a>, who has ever made the case passionately for electoral reform that could meaningfully devolve power to people beyond London? And of course, despite there being many champions of economic globalisation and the spread of capitalist consumerism, can we remember any politician making the positive, proud case for free movement of people, welcoming immigrants and the valuable enriching cultural accoutrements they bring?</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t happen. All are seen as detrimental to electoral success. So politicians need bravery in the name of risking that success.</p>
<h2>What’s at stake?</h2>
<p>This progressive alliance is needed now more than ever precisely because progressive values are under intense pressure. It is needed for openness to survive, for tolerance, respect, the rule of law and polite society to survive.</p>
<p>And make no mistake: they are indeed under threat in GE2017. Not because Theresa May, or the Tories, or the right in general are somehow naturally malevolent. Far from it. </p>
<p>These values are under threat because of the issues that the present government is tapping into and the tools it is using to protect its Brexit agenda. It is in a weak, defensive position because Brexit, in its current hard form, is undeliverable without much economic and social upset.</p>
<p>Going on the offensive, then, seems to be the only option on the table. It’s difficult to do otherwise: a defence of the indefensible is not possible or sustainable; only attack. The result is a cabinet of ministers who belittle anyone seeking to scrutinise them and a prime minister who announces a <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-who-exactly-is-playing-games-theresa-may-and-political-opportunism-76418">snap general election</a> with incredible belligerence, claiming it to be in the national interest. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/enemies-of-the-people-mps-and-press-gang-up-on-the-constitution-over-high-court-brexit-ruling-68241">Brexit-obsessed elements of the media</a> then helps her to sell that line.</p>
<p>This strategy makes rational sense for GE2017 on many levels. But in unleashing ever darker forces to protect itself from weakness, the government is pitting Remainer against Leaver, left against right, them against us, like never before.</p>
<p>These are the forces confronting progressives in GE2017, forces unlike any others in the history of peace and stability post-1945. So vastly different are they, the response to them must also be of an entirely different order. The question now is, do we have the politicians, the advisers, the academics and the writers brave enough to stand up and champion those new, progressive forces? We can only hope so.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76604/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It will take bravery and vision, but a deal between opposition parties is the only sensible way to respond to a changed political landscape.Andy Price, Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/652852016-09-16T09:55:25Z2016-09-16T09:55:25ZLiberal Democrats in Brighton – why their party conference still matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137612/original/image-20160913-4948-iyxv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/theenmoy/16361179262/in/photolist-qVMjzC-4joXWk-pSdBhm-hr53t5-rrXMnX-pCz6jG-ra1hbY-ndtPtS-bdW34a-47yRfs-hr6q1R-48LYFh-pZUxwn-hpvzN3-694Cfo-6oXfgV-gphzvv-nhcPni-nwAXNk-eCFAK5-nuYSnQ-gphhF1-hpvdTM-a6ZyXA-hpvKXu-zViSWQ-5Y1rBp-ez4vxo-dtNb5k-njUusf-ipngdn-gpgHd7-2HEPbe-Fr6DY-dxjeqr-6RiaV8-a2sBmZ-4sCD6Y-s8b49H-uy8acr-trDQtA-4wnqqB-pYXbJb-pSmzsJ-qWpCY2-54vQsw-67gp1G-29RbxE-6E7Vc5-4kJ7FQ">Theen Moy</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Party conferences are strange beasts. They can be a mix of sales conference, rally, social event, training course, decision-making forum, networking opportunity and job interview. And there will always be several “conferences” going on at once. For a charity campaigner or trade union lobbyist, the conference will be very different to that experienced by an MP or an activist.</p>
<p>But while us outsiders only get a glimpse of everything that goes on, there are ways to read party conferences that offer insight about the party and its people. The Liberal Democrats are at a particularly interesting period in their history, so the party’s <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/12523/attachments/original/1470310994/Aut16_agenda_book.pdf?1470310994">meeting in Brighton</a> offers particularly interesting fodder.</p>
<h2>Who is on the podium?</h2>
<p>A key issue at conference – and particularly this year – is who speaks. The Liberal Democrats only have eight MPs but they can’t all have keynote speech slots. The choice of speaker is significant.</p>
<p>This year, apart from the obvious Leader’s speech by <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/tim_farron">Tim Farron</a>, keynote MP slots have been given to <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/norman-lamb/1439">Norman Lamb</a> (Farron’s challenger for the leadership) and <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/Alistair-Carmichael/1442">Alistair Carmichael</a> (MP for Orkney and Shetland and home affairs spokesperson).</p>
<p>The choice of Lamb, given he is health spokesperson, is not surprising. Health always yields plenty of topical material. Carmichael, however, is a less obvious choice. His inclusion could of course point to the party’s ongoing desire to stress the sort of civil liberty issues covered in his portfolio. Or it could suggest the need to provide him with a positive platform following a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/09/alistair-carmichael-lib-dem-election-court-throws-out-attempt-to-unseat-mp">recent scandal</a> in his constituency, during which he did not exactly cover himself in glory. </p>
<h2>What’s on the agenda?</h2>
<p>In politics, timing is key. At conference this means how much time is given to a topic and at what point. Scheduling matters. Has a topic been given a prime slot – such as mid morning or in the run up to one of the leader’s appearances? How much time is being given over to discussing the topic? That gives us an indication of how important the issue is to the party. </p>
<p>The selection of topics up for debate on the conference floor also tells us a lot about what is important to the wider party and about what it wants to promote. When an election looms, party leaders see it as more important to be seen making soundbite-laden speeches. With limited time, that can mean less time for votes put forward by the members. But since the next election is probably years off, there is plenty of time this year for voting on the nitty gritty of policy. </p>
<p>High on the agenda is Europe – an issue which has been given a prime-slot motion. The party has deliberately scheduled an opportunity for this highly pro-European group of people to discuss the fallout from the referendum and, more importantly, what comes next.</p>
<p>One of the problems faced by the Lib Dems in the past has been a certain fuzziness. Polls often showed voters were <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/16/futures-bleak-lib-dems/">not clear</a> about where they stood on certain matters. However, Europe provides a massive opportunity for the party. Brexit may well mean Brexit for the majority of voters but there is a clear advantage when it comes to the remainder for whichever party keeps the pro-European flame alive.</p>
<p>Both in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/28/liberal-democrats-fight-election-halting-brexit-tim-farron">post-referendum</a> comments and in those <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-mp-writesa-liberal-democrat-plan-for-britain-in-europe-51770.html">closer to the conference</a>, party leader Farron has managed clearer statements and more defined positioning than Labour. Now, a large chunk of the Monday morning session at conference has been allocated to Brexit discussion.</p>
<p>Less prominent this time, but important none the less, is a session on Trident and nuclear weapons. There will be no vote on this. Members are taking part in a “consultative session” in the run up to an actual vote in the spring.</p>
<p>These consultations are part of a rather lengthy policy development process which the party uses on some topics. And while this will get less attention than conference floor proceedings, it is important. Lib Dem policy is currently not unilateral nuclear disarmament but there is a strong seam of unilateralism running through parts of the party.</p>
<h2>What does success look like?</h2>
<p>Given how much political media coverage is based on speculation and preview, there is a real risk that coverage of the Brighton event will be drowned out by guesses about Labour’s annual conference later in the month. So one measure of success for the Lib Dems will be a decent level of positive coverage.</p>
<p>Externally the party will want the event to deliver profile and positioning. Internally it will want to bind members in more strongly to the shared efforts of the next few years. It will be interesting to see, next time there is a TV interview on Europe, whether broadcasters are more likely to pick up the phone and call Farron. If they do, then this year’s Brighton conference will have achieved at least one of its goals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65285/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Keaveney is an active member of the Liberal Democrats and a serial conference attender.</span></em></p>Despite the party’s spectacular fall from grace, it’s worth noting who is speaking and what is on the agenda.Paula Keaveney, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations and Politics, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/447872015-07-16T15:58:26Z2015-07-16T15:58:26ZTim Farron wins Liberal Democrat leadership contest<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88688/original/image-20150716-5080-12ex04d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Farron away their best option.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/libdems/15289614900/in/photolist-pi6gQ1-pzj9Rk-pi6mzb-pi6kR7-pi74j4-pzyp8j-pi6y6q-pi6Sh4-pxxQFb-pi71xH-defRbu-defQST-8DqnJS-kQkemq-kQk7TK-aqdf8s-aqdi7w-aqdekL-aqaDj6-aqdgcS-aqdh89-tS71tR-tS6W1x-uNWSSZ-uLCjzw-uNu5DA-uLCdj5-piAwPD-aqaCdx-aK5xS2-uwmP3m-uwukdt-8DnhDe-8Dnh5e-rgbVt4-749xbH-74dtJu-tRVLZN-tRW4JE-8LN6eT-uwmMrq-uPcrdP-uwuxkz-uwmSrN-uPcnZz-uwuYEx-tRVRyN-tRVQ31-uwn2vY-uLCoo3">Liberal Democrats via Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How do you rebuild a political party after an electoral calamity? That was the question facing the Liberal Democrats when deciding who should replace Nick Clegg as their leader.</p>
<p>Now the party has chosen <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-16/tim-farron-elected-new-liberal-democrat-leader/">Tim Farron</a> to replace Clegg – a decision that could help bring back a spirit of optimism in a party battered by five years of government with the Conservatives.</p>
<p>After being reduced from 57 MPs in 2010 to just eight in 2015 – numbers reminiscent of the Liberal Party of the 1950s – the Lib Dems now face a difficult path back to political significance, let alone power.</p>
<p>In his book <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/Choosing-a-Leader/?K=9780333653364">Choosing A Leader</a> Leonard Stark suggests three criteria by which political parties select candidates for the top spot. They need acceptability, electability and competence. Successful leadership candidates, he argues, must demonstrate that they are ideologically acceptable to their parties and capable of winning elections and implementing their policies. While electability is the ultimate test of political leadership, this leadership came down to a choice between acceptability and competence.</p>
<p>Farron was the clear favourite from the start. The former party president was the ideologically acceptable candidate because his position outside the coalition government left him free to act as the tribune of the Liberal Democrat grassroots. </p>
<p>As early as 2011 Farron had <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8772159/Liberal-Democrat-Party-Conference-2011-Tim-Farrons-speech.html">told</a> the party’s annual conference that he felt his role as president was to “sell the undiluted Liberal Democrat standpoint … not to be an apologist for everything the coalition does”. And he was certainly as good as his word, awarding his party <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-gives-marks-to-the-party-in-coalition-44973.html">a mark of just two out of ten</a> for its handling of coalition government.</p>
<p>But if Farron’s critique of the coalition won him plenty of admirers among activists, it did not always win him friends among his parliamentary colleagues. Just weeks before the election <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/tim-farron-vince-cable#.vjn87QkRp">Vince Cable</a> said Farron’s criticism of the coalition “wasn’t at all helpful”. He warned that his lack of ministerial experience meant he would “not be seen as a very credible leader”. What was needed, Cable insisted, were “people who are seen to be competent and reliable”.</p>
<p>Other Lib Dem MPs apparently shared his concerns. One unnamed party figure <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/who-could-replace-nick-clegg-lib-dem-leader">reportedly said</a> he might be the first choice to speak at a constituency dinner but not necessarily to negotiate a coalition.</p>
<p>Lamb was, by contrast, was the competence candidate. He had a relatively low profile before being appointed minister for care and support in September 2012, which appeared to transform his political prospects. He remained a largely unknown figure to the average voter but gained a reputation within government as a quietly effective minister. He was respected by Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues alike.</p>
<p>But in other respects Lamb’s politics were more distant from those of ordinary party members. While both he and Farron remained aloof from the ideological debates triggered by the controversial <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-little-orange-book-that-put-the-lib-dems-in-the-big-leagues-28470">Orange Book</a>, Lamb has been widely identified as being from the economic liberal wing of the party – which puts him at odds with a considerable chunk of the Liberal Democrat grassroots.</p>
<p>Farron has positioned himself on the social liberal left of the party. His leadership will have a significant impact
on both the style and substance of the Liberal Democrats in the next five years.</p>
<p>His track-record as a campaigning MP suggests that he may be able to carve out a more distinctive ideological position for his party, and his leadership may also manage to restore a feel-good factor to the grassroots which was largely absent during the years of coalition government.</p>
<p>But the question remains – if Farron were to lead his party into coalition after the next election, would he be able to negotiate a deal that scored more than two out of ten?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Former party president beats Norman Lamb in bid to replace Nick CleggMatthew Francis, Teaching Fellow in Twentieth Century British History, University of BirminghamAndrew Denham, Reader in Government, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/415662015-05-09T15:08:23Z2015-05-09T15:08:23ZAfter the deluge, contenders line up for party leadership contests<p>In the wake of the election result comes the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-political-parties-choose-their-leaders-41534">inevitable bloodletting</a> in the parties who fared badly at the hands of the electorate. By lunchtime on Friday the leaders of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and UKIP had all fallen on their swords. </p>
<p>The annihilation of the Liberal Democrats came as no surprise. Their demise started with the broken pledge over tuition fees. They were seen as a fairly unprincipled, power-hungry bunch who didn’t care whose 30 pieces of silver they took to get a share of government. The Liberal Democrats <a href="http://www.crosenstiel.webspace.virginmedia.com/ldelections/">traditionally used to do well in by-elections</a>, yet their candidates lost their deposits in almost every seat they contested since 2010. The writing was well and truly on the wall. </p>
<p>The party now faces at least a decade in the political wilderness. The SNP could learn a lesson from this. With only 35% of the Scottish vote, they too could lose seats in five years time if they fail to deliver anything of substance for Scotland.</p>
<p>The problem for the Liberal Democrats now is who can lead them back from the brink. All the likely leadership contenders were ousted on Thursday night. Gone are David Laws, Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, and Ed Davey. There is a choice between two experienced politicians; Tim Farron, former party president, and Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg’s former parliamentary private secretary.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is Tim Farron the man to rebuild the Lib Dems?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/libdems/15473191821/in/photolist-pzyrRL-pi5bB6-pzymVy-pi6gQ1-pzj9Rk-pi6mzb-pi6kR7-pi74j4-pzyp8j-pi6y6q-pi6Sh4-pxxQFb-pi71xH-defRbu-defQST-8DqnJS-kQkemq-kQk7TK-aqdf8s-aqdi7w-aqaDj6-aqdh89-aqdgcS-piAwPD-aqaCdx-aK5xS2-8DnhDe-8Dnh5e-rgbVt4-749xbH-74dtJu-6jrVkD-bpTa5J-5nxxsg-6jhiJA-66EXHR-5nxyoZ-9WcEZX-qZrw29-defPdx-8DnjVK-7KpgKo-7KpfZ9-7Kkkha-aqdekL-8LN6eT-4Nkawc-nZJzu-7KPtE8-5ntMgu">Liberal Democrats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For UKIP the only credible contender is Douglas Carswell, the single candidate winning a seat at Westminster. All the support gained in by-elections and in the European elections fell away in terms of seats, despite taking almost 13% of the national vote. Fate dealt them a cruel hand and it’s not surprising Nigel Farage is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11593312/nigel-farage-attacks-electoral-system-after-election.html">calling for a change</a> to the voting system. </p>
<h2>Who’ll keep the red flag flying?</h2>
<p>The biggest leadership problem rests with Labour. For the last three years they have tried to court business and, at the same time, stay loyal to working people and the unions. Under Ed Miliband the “New Labour” values of Tony Blair were cast aside as the party shifted to the left of centre. Despite clear signs, Labour failed acknowledge they were not getting their message across to the electorate. The time has now come to decide what they stand for and whom they want to represent. Going forward Labour needs to find a clear sense of direction. Without that they cannot hope to rebuild a credible party</p>
<p>The writing was on the wall two years ago when Ed Miliband’s leadership was questioned. Instead of electing a more credible candidate to lead them into the election, the party insisted on continuing to back Ed. That was a disastrous decision and one they will regret for many years to come. At the end of the day no one would admit the party elected the wrong brother. There is something deep in the Labour psyche that puts loyalty above common sense. Ed Miliband’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/ed-stone-could-be-a-millstone-in-coalition-negotiations-41209">limestone manifesto</a> monument for Number 10, which later turned into a tombstone, was viewed by many as hubristic.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Should we be watching big brother?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/35952250@N02/4382454550/in/photolist-7Fge4d-by2YBA-bjTf5E-cJva7j-HyckF-dTtzzo-dn23LS-pk3ztm-gHNPMR-boWhXi-brqNin-e97c5X-gHPRep-e9cSY9-cJvhd5-8CRbtm-7FceJi-7zSQEn-cSjPph-dnR7Bf-6z9atm-6z9avs-6z54cn-6z98V1-6z98WC-6z54hv-6z54oM-6z54gt-6z549r-6z54dp-6z548t-6z98QA-6z54fv-br6UDP-qEzdt6-4w4omz-6rbeFj-6r74W4-6rbexQ-pvzn4i-onyH3f-m7wxgK-njVBBW-dZFrJy-oE4DNv-rQabQd-rwuyXQ-6z54bp-6z54kt-7ESFSa">Policy Network</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The party has a choice of potential candidates, but many are tainted by their unswerving pre-election allegiance to Ed Miliband. Chukka Umunna must be a prime candidate. He’s <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/blairite-group-progress-plotting-back-chuka-umunna-leadership-bid">seen as a bit of a Blairite</a> and it is questionable whether the party could make that U-turn. Yvette Cooper is ambitious – and must be a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/yvette-cooper-interview-labours-quiet-contender">serious contender</a>, if not the outright favourite. She is a seasoned politician who refused to be drawn on her aspirations on election night. </p>
<p>The shadow education secretary, Tristram Hunt – another Blairite – has a reputation for <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630549/Public-schoolboys-immoral-people-Ive-met-says-Labours-Tristram-Hunt.html">waging a class war on public schools</a>. As the son of a peer, Baron Hunt of Chesterton, the trade unions would no doubt find him a difficult candidate to support. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/andy-burnham-favourite-to-become-labour-leader-if-ed-miliband-goes">Andy Burnham is the pundits’ – and the bookies’ – favourite</a> to succeed Miliband. He was a contender in the 2010 leadership election and held a number of cabinet posts in Gordon Brown’s government. </p>
<p>Former minister, David Lammy, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/alan-johnson-labour-aspirational-voters-tony-blair">has also expressed an interest in the leadership</a>, while Alan Johnson – who served in several ministerial posts in the Blair and Brown administrations, has ruled himself out.</p>
<p>There are two outsiders. Ex-special forces soldier <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11363724/Meet-the-man-who-should-lead-Labour-after-Ed-Miliband.html">Dan Jarvis</a>, a relative newcomer, to politics is known to harbour leadership ambitions. The question is whether his New Labour tendencies would be held against him. A long-odds contender would be Liz Kendall. Her support for <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922627/Ed-Miliband-challenged-NHS-privatisation-Liz-Kendall-shadow-health-minister-says-matters-works-using-private-sector-services.html">private providers in the health sector</a> might go against her with the unions, but their control over who leads Labour is much diminished. Last, but not least, let’s not discount the possibility that David Miliband could return to save the party. That would require a lot of Labour soul-searching.</p>
<p>The next few weeks will be as entertaining as those in the lead-up to the election. We will see infighting and machinations in all the parties, none more so than Labour. For the past five years it has had both a leadership crisis and an identity crisis. The latter must be resolved before the former can be addressed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41566/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alf Crossman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three parties must now choose new leaders. Labour has a number of candidates jockeying for position.Alf Crossman, Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations and HRM, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.