When Nick Clegg resigned as the Liberal Democrat leader in May, he spoke of forces that had combined in the electoral demolition of his party: the surge in Scottish nationalism, the backlash it provoked in England and the exploitation of those sentiments by Conservatives. It was, he said, a “perilous point in our history where grievance and fear combine to drive our different communities apart”.
It was an eloquent performance and partly persuasive. There is an argument to be made that illiberal forces are on the rise, expressed in authoritarian responses to terror threats (not to mention the fascistic ideology of the terrorists themselves), lack of compassion for the poor, and dehumanising fear of migrants. But it would be wrong to conflate general challenges for liberalism with the specific problems of the Lib Dems. Social and economic liberalism also flourish in many areas of public life. Mr Clegg’s political humiliation followed bad choices he had made, not just cultural trends over which he had no control.
The task of unravelling the strands of defeat now falls to Tim Farron, named on Thursday as Mr Clegg’s successor. Mr Farron is an engaging and energetic campaigner, but that will be of little value without a political strategy to carve out space on a crowded national stage: not easy with only eight MPs in parliament and questions still lingering over the purpose of a party whose identity was submerged over five years in coalition.
The temptation will be to chase old glories as a baggy repository for indignation – a strategy that was effective when New Labour dominated the political landscape yet also generated contradictions that turned to hypocrisies and moral crisis in coalition with Conservatives.
Having undergone the transition to maturity as a party of government, the Lib Dems must not retreat to perpetual protest. Just as pointless would be treading water as a party of mealy mouthed commentary: a technocratic coalition partner-in-waiting without a clear agenda of its own. The route between those positions involves a concise articulation of liberal values, applied to a few specific policy areas, developed into a coherent campaign and ready to be translated into government. Mr Farron has already indicated what those themes might be: defence of civil liberties against a growing state appetite for surveillance, pro-Europeanism, affordable housing and a humane view of migration and asylum. To claim ownership of those messages to the extent that voters think it worthwhile electing more Lib Dem MPs is an ambitious goal, but not an impossible one.
Of course, that is not a platform for majority government, but amplifying and defending the views of a sizeable minority is a legitimate goal for a small party. Labour and the Tories have liberal elements in their ranks but the Lib Dems could plausibly make the case that neither big party can be trusted to have liberalism as its core purpose. It is also feasible that the next election will yield a hung parliament in which Lib Dems might be in a position to influence government, as they were in 2010. Distant though that prospect may now seem, it provides a discernible and credible purpose for the party, which would already represent a substantial advance on the position it has occupied since the election.
