I was honoured to be elected as a local Councillor in 2018. While I’ve known for a long time that work and family commitments would stop me from running again, it has been a really interesting experience. I have had loads of questions about it from family, friends and others so thought I would write this blog to answer some FAQs and share my personal experience.

1. What is a local Councillor?

A Councillor is elected to represent a “ward” on the local Council. They are expected to contribute to committee meetings, handle casework, and address the concerns of residents in their area. 

In Sutton, Councillors earn about £11,000 per year. Some have ‘cabinet’ positions as Chairs or Vice-Chairs of committees, and an additional payment comes with these commitments. The role of a Councillor sits in a strange middle ground where it is not quite a job, but not voluntary either. Most Councillors either have another job or are retired.

2. Can Councillors make a difference?

Of course, such as through casework, working with Council officers to resolve wider problems, and effective campaigning on local issues. I served as the Vice Chair of the Environment & Sustainable Transport Committee, which allowed me to influence bigger picture issues affecting the borough as well. This helped me to appreciate how important and meaningful work in local Government can be.

There are of course frustrations though. Little wins can take a lot of grunt work, and it can sometimes feel like everything is harder than it needs to be. You also need to accept that you will sometimes be blamed for things which have nothing to do with you (and occasionally thanked for things which you had little influence over)! 

3. So you knock on doors of total strangers to talk about politics?

People sometimes ask this – with a glint in their eyes – when they hear about door-to-door canvassing. Sorry to disappoint, but the vast majority of people are really nice! I must have knocked on thousands of doors and I can only think of a few examples of serious unpleasantness. It’s a bit different on social media, where people can be ruder. But even then, we are talking about a handful of frequent users who are deep inside an echo chamber.

I find knocking on doors and speaking to people one of the most rewarding parts of the job. Whatever their opinions, most people are pleasant and interesting, and welcome the chance to speak to a local politician about issues in their area.

4. What is it like working with opposition Councillors?

Most people who get involved in politics want to do what they think is right, and I’m sure this is true for most opposition Councillors in Sutton. But the relationship between Councillors from different parties can still be pretty toxic. I’ve found that opposing politicians are incredibly cynical about each other, assuming that everything an opponent says is calculated for political benefit. I think it’s a mistake to look at politics this way, but it isn’t surprising that these feelings develop. Politics is tribal. You have your team around you who are fighting for the same things as you, and another group who want something else, and are trying to persuade people to dislike you, sometimes personally. 

I try to empathise when the opposition think the worst of us. It must be frustrating that their motions and positions are constantly voted down, as is inevitable for an opposition group. They probably see us as arrogant and dismissive, while we sometimes grumble that they are opportunistic and present few ideas of their own. I suspect that versions of these complaints are repeated all over the country, with the parties swapping places, but having similar gripes about one another.

I am more troubled by how often this cynicism morphs into borderline conspiracy theories. Certain opposition Councillors have frequently accused us of corruption; secret agendas and constructing House of Cards style maneuvers to get our way. When I see someone getting particularly red-faced about such theories in a sparsely populated committee meeting, I often smile about how much more boring things are in reality, with cock-up overwhelmingly more common than conspiracy.

5. Do you get personal abuse as a Councillor?

A lot is written about the abuse MPs receive, and rightly so as it’s horrific. A lot of this – the death threats, the hate mail, the internet trolls – has never happened to me as a Councillor. 

But that isn’t to say I haven’t been on the end of some fairly alarming behaviour. The difference in my experience is that the abuse aimed at Councillors is not driven by an army of internet trolls, but by a handful of politically active local people, and the occasional rogue blogger. These people may raise reasonable concerns about something the Council is doing, but blow the issue out of all proportion, exaggerate to the point of lying, and target local Councillors in ways which wildly cross the line.

In my term as a Councillor, a few such people have:

• Emailed their gripes about me and the Council to my last two employers (small charities with no interest in local politics).
• Written creepy messages to me linked to my relationship, housing and wider private life.
• Accused me of behaviour like intimidation, threats or coordinated harassment – claims which are so outrageous that it becomes pointless to engage with them.
• Sent frequent, bad faith complaints to the Council or Lib Dems about me, coupled with some legal threats for good measure. None of these have any basis, but each time one is dismissed another one appears.
• Published blogs about me which are full of falsehoods, and which I had no right to reply to before publication.

While my experience has been worse than most, it isn’t unique, especially among more senior Councillors. We don’t have the protection of MPs. We don’t have offices, security or staff. There is nothing much we can do to prevent the worrying behaviour of a minority of political opponents who don’t respect boundaries, and who are obsessed with targeting local Councillors.

While many people are attracted to local politics for good reasons, it also attracts people with more toxic qualities: paranoia, obsessiveness, cynicism, hubris. If such people choose to harass their local representatives, there is no one short of the police who can make them stop. This is a real issue, as if we continue to allow a tiny minority to poison local politics in this way, it will become an increasingly unappealing option for normal, good hearted people.

6. “Could I be a Councillor”?

Many people think that Councillors have to be particular types of people: political junkies; the old and wealthy; people who have lived in the same area all of their life – but these stereotypes don’t need to be a barrier. Every political party is eager for new, diverse and passionate people to get involved, and I don’t think I’m breaking any state secrets when I say that none of them have snaking waiting lists. It’s okay if you don’t agree with every word of the party you choose to represent. It’s okay if you weren’t born and bred in the area you want to run in. It’s okay if you have other commitments. If you want to run for Council – pick the party which is the best fit for you and run for Council! 

We need people of all races, ages and genders to stop shouting at their TVs and give elected politics a go! While there have been ups and downs to my time as a Councillor, I am glad that I did it and have learned a lot from the experience.

When I first became interested in politics as a wide-eyed teenager, I was confident that progressives were the ones who saw nuance in people’s lives. We don’t call people benefit scroungers, but appreciate the root causes of poverty. We believe in rehabilitation when people make mistakes, not throwing away the key. These kinds of views seem to belong to people who are open-minded, nuanced and tolerant.

If I was a young person looking at the left now, would I use those words to describe them? I’m not so sure…

I worry that progressives are becoming increasingly generalizing, harsh and simplistic about people. The norm seems to be assuming the worst of people who we disagree with, rather than considering if they have good intentions.

I am really tired of seeing exchanges like this:

You’re concerned about immigration? – you must hate foreigners.

You don’t call yourself a feminist? – you must hate women.

You support the Conservatives? – you must hate the poor.

You disagree with gay marriage? – you must hate gay people.

When lefty activists hear that someone holds a position which they dislike, they so often seem to write them off as being bigots. That’s all well and good when someone holds a truly awful opinion, but the line is creeping more and more towards views which many normal people hold!

I have been thinking about why this tendency has been getting worse in recent years. There are clearly some usual suspects… social media encourages discussion to be dumbed down… political parties are incentivised to portray their opponents as monsters… etc. But I think there are other forces at play as well.

When it comes to identity issues (which is where Cancel Culture often lives) the views and behaviours which are seen as unacceptable have grown hugely. You don’t have to do something abhorrent to be called out for racism anymore. We now call out a huge range of more nuanced comments and behaviours as contributing to prejudice. I think this is great! I know that I say, think and do things which are unintentionally prejudiced sometimes. Calling out everyday assumptions and stereotypes is a much better reflection of how prejudice works than the outdated idea that bigotry is only a problem for a small minority of people.

However, as the list of unacceptable comments and behaviours has widened, our reaction to people who commit them has stayed the same. When J. K. Rowling raises questions about self-identification of gender, for instance, people who disagree with her respond as if she has just committed hate speech. The response from woke activists seems to be no more nuanced than: J. K. Rowling hates trans people. Come on, whether you agree with her comments or not…is that a reasonable conclusion to draw? It’s good that we are thinking harder about the implications of things which no one had batted an eyelid at before, but we’re doing so with the same viciousness and condemnation that we had for old school bigots shouting racist obscenities. We’ve combined the nuanced definition of prejudice with the unnuanced level of condemnation for people who are deemed to have said something prejudiced.

We’re now in the unsustainable position where lefty activists are condemning people for holding views which the vast majority of the population hold. Take the examples I used above for example. Personally, I am unconcerned about immigration, do call myself a feminist, don’t vote Conservative, and support gay marriage, so pass this particular woke-test with full marks (he says smugly). But most people do not agree with everything in the above list. Is that because the country is full of bigots? Of course not. It’s because our opinions are complicated, as are our reasons for holding them, and we shouldn’t assume that people who think things which are ‘un-woke’ (anti-woke?  non-woke? fast asleep?) hold those views because they are deeply bigoted.

What if we made these assumptions instead?

You’re concerned about immigration? – perhaps you think it puts a strain on public services.

You don’t call yourself a feminist? – perhaps you think feminism underplays men’s issues.

You support the Conservatives? – perhaps you think they have the best solutions for the country.

You disagree with gay marriage? – perhaps you have strong views about the biblical definition of marriage.

All of these conclusions describe arguments which I strongly disagree with. But, unless progressives are comfortable concluding that the majority of people are bigots, then we should be open-minded to the idea that people come to these conclusions in good faith, rather than that they are hateful and should be condemned.

If there’s anything that progressives love to do more than anything else, it’s rip each other to shreds.

The prospect of full-blooded civil war in the Labour Party is looming large yet again, following Corbyn’s expulsion. I don’t want to focus on Labour’s anti-Semitism problem – so much has been written about it already – but obviously I have huge sympathy for Jewish people for whom this whole ongoing saga must be incredibly painful. 

But what so often gets forgotten amongst the inevitable infighting is all of the things which progressives have in common. What holds the bulk of the left-leaning population together?

Well, an awful lot actually. Here are some examples.

1. A fairer society

Inequality is out of control. Corbyn knows it, Starmer knows it, Davey knows it. Jeff Bezos’ wealth increases by over $300 million every day while almost a quarter of Brits live in poverty. Something has gone seriously wrong to allow that to happen. Left of centre parties agree on many of the ways to tackle this problem. A more redistributive tax system. A more robust welfare system. Greater investment in our economy. A minimum wage that keeps people out of in-work poverty. There is a broad consensus about these points on the left, regardless of which faction people place themselves in.

2. Climate change

There were some environmental activists who, to their credit, were shouting about this long before it was “cool” among other left-wing people. Those days are gone. The left is now broadly united in the belief that serious change is needed to tackle the climate emergency. This means making a lot of decisions which can be unpopular, and we may have to accept some short term damage to the economy. But I am heartened by the fact that leaders in all progressive parties are championing the case for a greener economy.

3. Tackling discrimination

Despite the awful problem with anti-Semitism in parts of the Labour party, I am convinced that a continued commitment to tackling prejudice is something that progressives can be proud of. Taking a stand on these issues can be unpopular. A lot has been said about how UKIP-style parties can eat into parts of the progressive vote, and how some traditionally left wing voters are being turned off by issues like immigration and political correctness. But, despite this, progressive parties in the UK and abroad continue to (broadly) champion diversity, which is a strength we can be proud of.

The one which matters…

The public already support many of these causes, and vote for progressive parties in high number. The median voter has been “left-of-Tory” in every General Election for the last 60 years, except in 2015. But the Conservatives have ruled for the majority of those years because FPTP doesn’t give us what we want. When it comes to causes that progressives should unite around, electoral reform needs to be top of the list.

First Past the Post punishes pluralism. When the progressive vote is “split”, it helps Conservatives win. And despite all of the things which we agree on, people on the left just aren’t comfortable in one broad party like Conservatives are. And they shouldn’t have to be. Pluralism isn’t a bad thing, as long as parties can still work together on things which we are united on. In-fighting among progressives has doomed us to many years of lost progress, and I hope and pray that we can at least unite around the need to reform our voting system so that future Governments reflect what voters really want.

The Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP already support this. All eyes on Keir Starmer. 👀

Leaders almost always poll well in times of national crisis. George W Bush’s approval rating rocketed to a staggering 92% after 9/11. Many people say that the Falklands War saved Margaret Thatcher ahead of the 1983 General election. And several world leaders have seen their popularity rocket during the COVID-19 pandemic. I’m not at all surprised that Johnson’s has done the same.

Asking why this boost happens is more interesting. Andrew Rawnsley wrote about this phenomenon in the Observer today, arguing that people need the comfort of “thinking they are in the hands of capable leaders” during a crisis. “In an emergency, many of us need to believe that there are smart people at the top who know what to do,” he says. There could be some truth in this, but I’m not convinced it is the whole picture. Believing that politicians are good and capable would always be a comforting thought to people facing serious problems. But we know that public opinion of politics tends to be in the gutter.

I think it has more to do with the fact that we are all rallying together against one common enemy. In times like these, people look to the Prime Minister as someone who is on their side and has the same goal as them. This is not the case in normal times, when many people imagine that politicians are looking out for some other group in society, or that they are looking out for themselves.

I think there’s something more at play here as well though. Maybe it is my optimistic, non-cynical outlook, but I think times of crisis show politics’ true colours in a good way. Public opinion of politicians in general is incredibly low. Phrases like “they don’t care about normal people,” and “they’re only in it for themselves,” trip off of many tongues without a second thought. But in times of crisis, this interpretation becomes more difficult to defend. Because the vast majority of leaders, of any political persuasion, put aside their other concerns and do whatever they can to combat the crisis. I think people are pleasantly surprised by this, and view that leader more positively.

But we would all do the same thing in their shoes right? If most ordinary people found themselves leading a national response to a pandemic, I’m sure that they would do whatever they could to save lives. It’s so easy to forget that politicians are just people, and they have the same basic instincts as the rest of us. I don’t like Johnson as a politician at all. I think he can be dishonest, he’s often populist, and his vision for the country is all wrong. But do I think his number one motivation right now is to keep British people safe from COVID-19? Call me naïve, but I do.

While I think most political leaders hold this basic level of common decency, we can’t take it for granted. I don’t think Trump’s primary motivation right now is to save American lives. Tragically, he seems much more concerned by his own reputation, which is truly horrifying. But people like Trump are rare, in politics and in life. Most politicians are human beings with empathy, who appreciate the seriousness of the task at hand. Maybe when a cynical population witnesses this from their leaders, they become momentarily less cynical.

As a US citizen I try to keep my head around American politics as much as I can. Even though I would vote for anyone (literally anyone) against Trump in November, I am following the Democratic primaries with a lot of interest.

Elizabeth Warren has been my favourite candidate, so I was really disappointed to see her have to drop out of the race. The common assumption appears to be that Warren and Sanders are very similar, and that her supporters will automatically support him in her absence.

I don’t agree. Here are 4 reasons that I think Elizabeth Warren is a much better candidate than Bernie Sanders.

Ideology

Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist. Warren is a social democrat who wants radical change to make America fairer, but still describes herself as a capitalist.

I prefer Warren’s approach. While America is far too dominated by corporate interests and an obsession with free markets, I’m not convinced that socialism is the solution. The Nordic countries are some of the most progressive, equal and happy countries in the world. Indeed, Sanders’ supporters often say the U.S should emulate them. I agree, but these are capitalist countries with strong mechanisms for redistribution and properly funded public services.  They are not socialist countries.

Warren’s vision of a more strongly regulated and redistributive capitalist society has worked well in practice, ties in better with America’s economic strengths, and is more achievable in the context of U.S politics.

Getting things done

Warren is passionate about regulating Wall Street. So she proposed creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – a new arm of Government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. President Obama appointed her to create this agency, which remains an influential part of the American Government.

That’s really impressive, and shows that she can put her ideas into practice. Working with people with different views to get things done is vital in politics – especially American politics where there are so many checks and balances on power.

Sanders has never demonstrated this ability to work with others and get things done. His campaign consistently rails against the “Democratic establishment”. He doesn’t even sit as a Democratic Senator. Will he be able to unite broad coalitions within his party and beyond to bring about change? I’m yet to be convinced.

Message and Tone

Sanders is angry. He says that he is on the side of ordinary Americans against the “1%” and “the billionaire class”. There is plenty to be angry about in America, and inequality is indeed rampant. But I do find the “us and them” narrative simplistic – almost populist. It’s very easy to point at a shady group of powerful people who are to blame for all of your woes. But it is rarely so simple in reality.

Warren also campaigns against corruption, against inequality, and against how much power and influence is held on Wall Street. But she doesn’t use the “us and them” language to the same extent. Her vision comes across as problem-solving, driven by compassion and a desire for fairness. I think this is a better approach.

There’s a reason that a chunk of Sanders’ supporters – the Bernie bros – are known for being so unpleasant, belligerent and tribal. It’s because Sanders’ appeals to their anger to garner support. I prefer campaigns driven by compassionate problem-solving rather than those driven by anger.

Guns

Sanders’ voting record on guns isn’t great. He has defended lax gun laws in Vermont on the grounds of it being a ‘rural state’, and has previously voted against tighter gun restrictions as a senator. His proposed policies on guns are much more progressive now than they were in 2016, but his mixed record still worries me. Gun violence is one of the biggest problems in America, and one of the hardest to get the political capital to solve. Do we want someone who is luke warm about the issue in the White House?

Warren’s record on guns is better, and I liked her policy on gun violence in this campaign. It went beyond the usual headline-grabbers like stricter background checks and banning assault weapons. Her plan also included an $100 million pledge to research gun violence and investigate new ways to tackle the issue. I think that indicates that she has a mature, evidence-based attitude to tackling one of America’s most entrenched problems.

---

The arguments above don’t take gender into account, but I do think this is important as well. Of course being a woman doesn’t make Warren better than Sanders, but after 44 consecutive men in the White House I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for some gender diversity. I am convinced that sexism played a large part in Warren’s decline during these primaries, which makes it an even bitterer pill to swallow.

While some people don’t think this is fair, I personally think that age is a relevant factor as well. A Sanders presidency would begin when he is 79 and end when he is 83 years old. It would not be at all unusual for a person who is healthy and sharp at 79 to start losing some of those faculties as they progress through their 80s. Isn’t that a bit risky for someone who is the President of the United States?

To be clear, I don’t dislike Bernie Sanders. There are a lot of things about him that I really admire and I think he would move America in the right direction if elected President.

But I reject the notion that Warren supporters should automatically back him over Joe Biden. Personally, I am still undecided between the two. I suspect that a lot of other Warren supporters feel the same.

Conspiracy theories get my blood boiling more than almost anything else in politics. But as our political debate has become more cynical, adversarial and ‘click-baity’, conspiracy theories have bloomed. More people than ever before repeat accusations as if they are common sense, when what they are actually describing is an absurd conspiracy theory, which is only given any credibility because it is wildly cynical and supports their world view.

Troublingly, this habit seems to be thriving across the political spectrum. I despair when I see people who I agree with on many other things pedalling nonsense ideas which don’t stand up to scrutiny. So I’ve decided to do a “Conspiracy Callout” on this blog – debunking the latest conspiracy which is being presented as fact.

Boris, the BBC, and the Remembrance Wreath.

What happened:

Johnson laid a wreath on Remembrance Day. Many people pointed out that he laid it upside down, and that he looked scruffy and dishevelled. The BBC then broadcasted archived footage of Boris laying a wreath in 2016 instead, where Johnson arguably behaved more appropriately.

The Conspiracy

Many claimed that this was a deliberate move from the BBC to attempt to paint Johnson in a better light. Here is a much circulated tweet on the subject from Mike Galsworthy– who founded Scientists4EU and NHS4PeoplesVote, and who posts many things which I agree with.

This story was covered in the Independent, Telegraph, Express and many other media outlets.

To assess whether this is a valid claim, let’s look at a few factors.

Motive

Why would the BBC want to paint Johnson in a good light? The Conservatives aren’t promising policies which will particularly help the BBC. And I find it hard to believe that decision makers in the BBC are overwhelmingly Conservative ideologically either. Though even if they were, it is still a huge step to imagine that they would happily sacrifice all journalistic values to promote Boris Johnson. In reality journalists within the BBC will have a wide range of political opinions, and often got into journalism because they think free speech and transparency are important.

How would they do it?

But even if we imagine there is a rampant pro-Boris agenda within the BBC, how would they maintain the cover up? If bosses at the BBC are really commanding that journalists, editors and designers twist coverage in favour of Boris Johnson, then an awful lot of people must be in on that secret. Does that really make sense? Could this really stay a secret? Would no one blow the whistle?

Why would they do it?

Okay… so even if we delve into fantasy land and imagine that the BBC would have the desire and ability to doctor footage to help Boris Johnson, would changing this particular footage be worth it? Of course not. The impact on Boris Johnson’s credibility is less than negligible, and it is inevitable that people would notice that the footage was wrong. The only likely response would be exactly the kind of backlash which has happened in reality.

Conclusion

The idea that the BBC doctored footage of Boris laying a wreath to improve his election chances is obviously, ludicrously absurd.  It was clearly a mistake by a tired staff member, who is now shaking their head in disbelief at all of the creative conspiracies which have followed from their mistake.

I don’t think that the thousands of people who repeated this conspiracy have thought through the implications of what they’re saying. They haven’t thought deeply about why the BBC would want to support Johnson or how they would maintain the cover up. They have lazily bought into this theory because it is cynical, and it fits their political outlook.

I implore anyone who is tempted to think this way… don’t! Mindless cynical conspiracies are poisoning our politics, don’t be part of the problem.

The Lib Dems passed a policy at our Conference pledging to stop Brexit by revoking Article 50 if we are elected.

I’m delighted by this. We are showing leadership on the most important issue of the day, which is what political parties should do. The Lib Dems believe that we should stay in Europe. So pledging to do anything else if elected would be an abdication of leadership. The result of a People’s Vote could compel a theoretical Lib Dem Government to deliver Brexit.  Would it really be right for a Lib Dem Government to do this? A Prime Minister shouldn’t put an issue to referendum unless they have a plan for both outcomes – something which we criticised Cameron for many times. We think Brexit is a disaster. So we shouldn’t deliver it under any circumstances.

The result of the referendum in 2016 doesn’t change our views or values. If Corbyn wins a landslide in 2019, the Conservatives won’t go to the next election promising to implement socialism as it is “the will of the people”. Political parties are there to fight for their beliefs. The fact that Corbyn is pledging to stay neutral in a People’s Vote to “leave it up to the people” is absurd. Why bother campaigning in elections at all if that’s your attitude? We should all just knock on voters’ doors and say “it’s up to you who you vote for, I have no view”.

If I was the last person in the world who believed that the UK should remain in the EU, I would be out campaigning to persuade people to change their minds. Politics is about standing up for what you believe in. I’m glad that the Lib Dems are doing this.

The most well-intentioned counter arguments I’ve come across focus on the difference between an election and a referendum. The two main lines here seem to be:

1. You should deliver the result of the referendum before trying to reverse it.
2. You can only reverse a referendum with another referendum, as General Elections are run on FPTP, and focus on many different issues apart from Brexit.”

Taking them in turn:

1. I see the validity of this in general (if there had been a Yes vote in the AV referendum, for example, I would have been angry if the Tories waited four years and then opposed it before it had been implemented). But I don’t think you can look at this in the same way, because implementing Brexit in any vaguely responsible way takes such a long time and can happen in so many different ways. It is also almost impossible to reverse and would have broad reaching implications on every aspect of our country for decades to come. You can’t expect other parties to wait for ten years before raising objections, watching as the realities of Brexit continue to be a million miles away from what was promised in 2016. If an election arrives before Brexit is delivered, we have a duty to fight for what we think is right.
2. I agree that FPTP is a terrible system, but it is the reality of how elections are run in 2019. The result in 2016 doesn’t bind us, as Liberal Democrats, to deliver something which is seismically opposed to everything we stand for. However you are elected to power, you should not do something which you think will be bad for the country. If you believe that the Lib Dems should hold a People’s Vote while in Government, then you must believe that we should deliver Brexit if Leave won that People’s Vote. I don’t think that can happen. There is no Lib Dem version of Brexit.

Ultimately, this is a matter of principle. On issues of such enormous importance to the country, political parties should always stand up for what they believe in. Millions of people have signed a petition to revoke Article 50. The Leave campaign’s promises have been exposed as lies. Our country has been paralyzed by Brexit for over three years. Standing to revoke Article 50 isn’t subverting democracy, it is democracy in action. And I expect us to be rewarded for it.  

Gaining the “anti-establishment vote” is increasingly important in politics. But I think the concept of the establishment has been badly misunderstood. It is too often characterised as a single group of people with united interests. In reality, there are different versions of the establishment which all generate different types of anti-establishment voting. 

Here are three different versions of the establishment and how they are evoked.

The Economic Elite

These are rich people who want to preserve their wealth, and push for policies which defend those interests. The economic elite control large swathes of the media, lobby politicians to support their interests, and are often elected to Parliament themselves. This is the version of the establishment which is frequently evoked by Corbyn supporters, and is often associated with the Conservatives and right wing interests. 

The Liberal Elite

I see the Liberal Elite as a group which have significant influence over the rules of acceptable discourse. They are particularly powerful around identity issues like race and gender, and influence what is and isn’t acceptable to say. It’s hard to pin down who are members of the Liberal Elite, but they tend to be wealthy liberal people who have social or cultural capital. The BBC is often accused of being part of the Liberal Elite, as are many celebrities and politicians who are both liberal and seen of as “out of touch”. People who are angry at the Liberal Elite often complain about political correctness, and an idea that wealthy lefties feel they know the answers better than “ordinary people”, whose concerns aren’t appreciated or understood.

I don’t tend to agree with these criticisms, and welcome political correctness (perhaps I am a member of the Liberal Elite myself). But I think it is important to recognise it as a form of the establishment which many people want to rebel against.

The Political Establishment

Our political system is rigged towards the two main parties, and both Labour and Conservatives are part of the political establishment which keeps it this way. The political establishment reinforces itself by keeping First Past the Post in place, by disparaging the idea of coalitions or consensus politics, and by dismissing votes for other parties as wasted votes. The political establishment have done an excellent job of permeating the psyche of British voters. Note how Labour won 40% of the popular vote in 2017, while the Greens achieved 4% in 2015 on an extremely similar platform. The political establishment do a good job of persuading voters that the only serious options to choose between are Labour and the Conservatives. 

Know the difference!

Gaining the anti-establishment vote is a huge asset in politics, but this vote is not coming from one direction. Corbyn harnessed anger against the economic elite in 2017. But this is different to the anger harnessed against the Liberal Elite by Trump and Brexit campaigners in 2016. And the sadly short-lived wave of Cleggmania in 2010 was driven by people who were angry at the political establishment, wanting political reform and a clear third party voice. 

When people don’t recognise these differences, they are bemused by the behaviour of anti-establishment voters. “How can people say Trump is anti-establishment?” many people scoff, “he’s a super rich white businessman.” But they’re missing the point. Trump doesn’t appeal to people’s rage against the Economic Elite. He appeals to their rage against the Liberal Elite. He appeals to people who are angry at things like feminism, immigration and political correctness. It is a completely different anger.

This nuance matters. The Lib Dems, for instance, can harness anti-establishment feeling about political reform and breaking the two party system. Most Lib Dems are also anti-establishment in terms of the economic elite, but we are often overlooked in favour of Labour on this issue. In terms of the “Liberal Elite” – we are usually inside the perceived establishment. Recognising these differences can allow us to tap into the most relevant anti-establishment sentiments for our voters.

Most political activists seem to think like this:

1. My party has its flaws, but it is full of good, honest people who have the answers to the country’s problems.
2. Other parties are as bad as each other. They are full of cynical Machiavellian people who only care about winning elections. 

I understand why you would think this way. Opposition parties are fighting to achieve goals which you think will harm the country. And while doing this, they often viciously attack you and your values to try to make people think you are incompetent and/or dangerous and/or a liar. It’s not surprising that political opponents rarely have respect for one another. 

Despite this, it is really important to see the bigger picture. It’s pretty simplistic to think that one party has a monopoly on good ideas and noble politicians. While some politicians are truly bad eggs (our Prime Minister being one of them) most politicians from all parties are involved in politics on some level because they want to make things better. They just disagree on how to do this, and which interests to prioritise.

If you don’t see any good intentions in your political opponents, you risk becoming what I call a “bunker politician” – deflecting any criticism as cynical and manufactured, rather than reflecting on if it could be true. People with this mindset can also become more cynical and dishonest themselves. “Who cares if what I’m saying is an untrue smear? They’d do the same to us right?” 

I try to think of the battle between different political parties like I would an internal party primary. We disagree about policies, values and priorities, but have a shared goal: making the borough/country/world a better place. And the opposition, in my mind, is not another party: but the problems which hold us all back: scarce resources; disease; climate change; the limitations of our own knowledge; the human instinct to protect yourself and your loved ones above everyone else. 

These fundamental problems are the fuel to most human suffering. And politics is the industry which tries to solve them. That’s why I care about it so much, and have respect for others who have joined the fight – whatever colours they’ve pinned to their mast.