I was recently reading through the agenda for the Autumn Conference this year (2026, if you're reading from the future) and I came across a motion that particularly bothered me; the motion in question that I am referring to being F6, titled "The Liberal Democrats Mean Business" the part that irked me in particular was this description of the Party:
"The Liberal Democrats are the natural party of business, as the only truly internationalist, pro-enterprise and fiscally responsible political force, advocating for a mutually beneficial partnership between the public and private sector."
I feel this has come as part of a long line of comments from the top of the Party that try to present the Liberal Democrats as the successor to Cameron's Leadership Conservative Party; fiscally austere, internationalist insofar as it helped the business interests and socially reformist insofar as popular opinion would benefit him. In fact, he sums up his philosophy remarkably well in his speech from the 2015 Conservative Conference, I don't recommend you listen to the whole hour, but the points he makes on Europe and the economy strike a very similar chord to this motion.
But as I read further my issues grew beyond the rhetoric, the description of the Employment Rights Act 2025 as somehow only offering limited improvements for workers seems at odds with the reality, workers who engage in strike action will be protected from unfair dismissal, . The fact the motion has the audacity to say the Act was "limited" in the improvements it offered and then brag about reducing the improvements for workers by reducing what was meant to be a day one protection from unfair dismissal to a six month one is shameless.
There is another point that also caught my attention for all the wrong reasons, the discussion of Artificial Intelligence and the impacts it will have on employment, or rather, the lack thereof. We know that AI is invariably affecting people's ability to be hired, whether that be from AI discriminating against both women and ethnic minorities when used as a hiring tool or simply taking low-level jobs that would've once been given to young people to get them on the ladder; far from proposing community based data models that reflect local areas unique makeup, or preventing AI use where it could harm employment - a cornerstone of humanities' of sense of self and meaning - the Motion disappointingly proposes that a cut to National Insurance and some worker representation on company boards will be able to resolve the issues AI poses, a distinctly weak solution that offers little insight into the thought process behind how this could improve the situation.
I won't pretend that Labour's policies for business haven't had some problems, a few small business owners and freelancers I know have found their national insurance rise, alongside a number of sneaky VAT rises in order to stay within their fiscal rules, as quite punitive on their livelihoods, and I think there's room for discussion about what we do on the topic of tax rates, especially given many our unhappy with the current distribution of the burden. (Though for all intensive purposes, we are a low tax country.) But I fear the broad strokes of this policy are so strongly in favour of business that any amendment proposed would not be able to change the overall message of the motion, with it's scepticism of regulation laid out so clearly, with little reference to meaningful alternative, and as such I cannot see myself voting in favour of it under any circumstances.
If Liberal Democrats want to know how a Party that primarily appeals to business and freelancers above other interests performs, they need look no further than the Free Democrats in Germany as these groups are their only consistent supporters. While they have experienced occasional bursts of popularity, such as through a viral speech, much like we have, their weak support base - lacking the size of weight of the Church to the Union or the Trade Unions to the Social Democrats - has meant in recent years that they have not weathered incumbency well.
Is that truly the future we want for the Party?
It is in my opinion that a Liberal Party of any seriousness must do more than represent a narrow section of interests. Of course the self-employed (small business owners, freelancers etc.) will naturally have a part to play in that, as they quite naturally reflect the "Liberal ideal" of having a large enough degree of self-sufficiency to pursue their interests without falling into the realm of posing significant threat to the freedom others; but this accounts for only 13.3% of British People a number that is nowhere near enough to win a General Election, even if we presume every single self-employed person did vote Liberal Democrat. So it begs the question, if we aren't just representing business, who else is there?
If we look to Canada we may begin to see some of our answers, the Liberal Party of Canada is the dominant force in Canadian politics, having been in power for 70 years of the last Century, and avoided the marginalisation we faced after the first world war due to remaining flexible in it's voter base. Ideologically they are quite similar to us as well, with an emphasis on Social Liberalism in particular. Today, much like us, they are particularly popular with well-educated people with a stable income, but there are other key demographics that they have successfully tapped where we haven't; women for one, are a core part of the Liberal voter base, and this is a demographic I know we can win, because we've done it before; in 2010 we were the most popular Party aged among women aged 18-24, so there's no reason to think we don't have the appeal. Additional to this minorities of all shades are likely to vote Liberal in Canada, and while by their nature they do not make up a majority of the population, these are people who in my experience are much more likely to be activists as their rights are ever more threatened than those of the majority.
So in short, the values that translate to a modern Liberal success in terms of voting demographics are not simply responsible economics, but a commitment to individualism, social justice and equality; values that when communicated clearly can drive the support of those they affect most, alongside the conscientious urban populations, all of whom now flock to the Greens for these same reasons.
When viewed in this perspective it becomes clear why F6's prescriptions will hamper us long-term, AI implementation cannot be solved with workers on company boards alone, as it disproportionately affects the employment chances of too many of what should be our core voters, and the Employment Rights Act, which has increased the scope of liability for sexual harassment, should not be overlooked as simple "red tape" that obstructs business, but a small step of many in creating a fairer society for women.
That is the future I want for the Party, and that is why I will be opposing F6.
No comments:
Post a Comment