Liberal Democrat Leadership: A chance to breathe progressive energy into a party sorely in need of a fresh start

Last month Tim Farron chose to resign as leader of the Liberal Democrats. This article won't focus on that, other than where it affects the way forward. However, his resignation does present the party with an opportunity.

The party has been on a rollercoaster, from their first experience of government in decades to a catastrophic loss of public trust that resulted in an electoral collapse that lost the party all but eight seats in the Commons.

Under Farron, who had no part in the Coalition, it appeared that things were turning around. Recoveries in council elections, and the remarkable by-election upset in Richmond Park, suggested that the pro-European party would do well at a general election.

The results were, by most measures, disappointing. Yes there were gains, with some of the party's bigger names returning - even as others departed. But the party went hard on one issue and it didn't land. And there were also unhelpful distractions.

With yet another election unlikely to be far away, the party is at an impasse. There was no election surge and the party has no resonating message. It now has no leader either.

Contenders

The next leader has to grasp these challenge quickly and get on top of them. There can be no room for looking inwards. When nominations close in a week's time, the contenders putting themselves forward must give the party moving forward.

At the outset, it seemed like there would be an a list of experienced contenders to debate just how to do that. The favourites included the experienced former ministers Norman Lamb, Ed Davey and Vince Cable.

But the strong favourite was Jo Swinson. Not only would she have have been the party's first female leader - an important statement in itself - the party would have had in Swinson a liberal feminist at the helm outspoken and capable.

The biggest difficulty barrier ahead of her candidacy, it had seemed, was her time as a minister in the Coalition. Yet her early Parliamentary career was so tangled up with Cabinet collective responsibility, that her voting could only really be seen as representative of the Coalition as a whole.

That gives Swinson, in her return to the Commons, something near to a fresh start. A chance to establish her own agenda and to define herself, and her party, anew.

However, despite being labelled the favourite (by a wide margin), Swinson chose not to stand. She was promptly elected Deputy Leader, however, so her voice will not be missed at the head of the party.

Her choice not to stand would become a trend. Soon after, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb both announced they would not stand either. With no challenger yet coming forward, Vince Cable is at present the only candidate to become the next leader.

Renewal

Over the years, the liberal parties in Britain have found themselves caught between two movements. The free marketers have been pulled rightward by the Conservatives and the social liberals have been pulled leftward by Labour.

And yet, the Liberal Democrats seemed to be making inroads as an alternative progressive party to Labour until the 2010 general election. In longstanding liberal tradition, the party announced it would respect pluralism and go into coalition with the party with most seats and most votes.

That decision, that led to Cameron and Clegg announcing the Coalition in the Rose Garden, ultimately proved wildly unpopular. It hangs over the party two years on. As the presumptive next leader, Vince Cable needs to address weaknesses like these.

To his credit, Cable has already taken steps to head off those concerns that more collaboration with the Tories awaits in the future. Cable described working with the Tories was like mating with a praying mantis - not something you're likely to survive twice.

It helps that the party has been clear that it won't be making any deals and in the election campaign, even Nick Clegg spoke of the need to work constructively with Labour in the aftermath to oppose the Tories - a clear sign that there is no going back.

The break from the past could bring with a fresh start on policy too. At the centre of the their 2017 campaign was the call for a second referendum. But it didn't really get traction. It was a policy that seemed to have missed a change in the public mood.

There is a growing sense that people have accepted that Brexit is going to happen and are focussing now on the future - a mood that makes the Lib Dems position seem nostalgic, or even conservative.

There is, perhaps, a need to draw a line under staying in - following what might be considered two defeats - and to realign thinking toward the future. Not to stop being pro-Europe or even pro-Remain, but to think about what these mean going forward rather than trying to undo the past. Three points to consider would be:

• to scrutinise and campaign for the least damaging Brexit,
• to support the right for individuals to retain their EU citizenship,
• and, to start talking about pathways back to European cooperation in the future.

The key is to start taking the initiative and look forwards, not backwards. To get back to basics, like questions of individual's rights. That idea doesn't just extend to policy on Europe.

Perception

At the heart of being forward-looking in developing policy and taking stances is public perception. For smaller parties it is a difficult, and sometimes perilous, tightrope to walk. But at it's heart, there are practical limitations these parties face and they must tailor their message to that reality.

When he resigned, Tim Farron drew a link between his decision and questions that arose in the election campaign suggesting a conflict between faith and politics. Farron portrayed the conflict as only the perception of an intolerant illiberal secularism.

Now, it certainly isn't incompatible for someone to be personally conservative and yet politically liberal, open and tolerant of others, and respecting their right to live their own lives.

But it is a hard stance to hold as the leader, as the figurehead, of a liberal movement. When asked to assuage doubts about his stance on LGBT and abortion rights, Farron failed to offer reassurance - focusing instead on himself.

Politics is a game played in soundbites and shorthands. The grand rhetoric and inspiring thought absolutely matters, so very much, but it isn't the gateway - the access point. Image and perceptions matter.

For the smaller third parties - for whom taking symbolic stands are one the few opportunities they get to show the public who they are - the leadership has to be a beacon of the values of that party, without equivocation.

The Coalition interfered with the Liberal Democrats' ability to make themselves distinct. The comedown from the personality politics that grew up around Nick Clegg has tarnished their image, along with the links to the Tories.

The party's long held commitments to plurality, to compromise, to democratic cooperation and serving the national interest above the party interests are all worthy. But little of it ever makes it to the public eye and is rarely interpreted as intended.

The party also seems to have struggled to establish what it is for, pitching a stance of 'equidistance' under Clegg that didn't really change under Farron. While there is nothing wrong with Centrism, it shouldn't be confused with just splitting the difference.

As a small party, the Lib Dems can't afford those confusions. It needs a clear message. For a good example, consider the party's 1997 manifesto. It called for active government that would strengthen liberty, promote prosperity and widen opportunity. There is what liberalism is supposed to stand for, summarised in three words: Liberty - Prosperity - Opportunity. Hopeful words that focus on the future, not just management of the mediocre present.

Foundation

The 2017 general election established a Liberal Democrat baseline and perhaps new foundations. Even with just a dozen MPs, the party still have the ability to put forward a capable frontbench team, with recognisable names associated with positive progressive campaigns.

From Vince Cable, with a long history as a treasury spokesperson and minister, and an economics expert; to Ed Davey, who was minister for energy and the environment; to Norman Lamb, who was a minister in the Department of Health, is an outspoken advocate of parity of esteem for mental health and now also chair of the Science and Technology select committee; there are strong credentials. In addition, both the returning Jo Swinson and the brand new Layla Moran are MPs who look like future party leaders.

There Lib Dems survived their mistakes and have decent foundations to build upon. But there are decisions to be made if the party wants to make it back from the brink - for the second time in it's history. But do so, the party needs to be much more self-aware and it needs to be clear.

There is still a place for liberalism under a broader progressive banner, but it has to commit. Even standing as centrist, with its cherished value of inclusivity, can be progressive. But the centre is not to be found halfway between Labour and the Tories.

Vince Cable, increasingly likely to be the next leader, has made positive steps in that direction. He has affirmed the "no deals" stance, with particular venom towards the Tories, supported the Compass campaign for a Progressive Alliance over the past few years and received cross-party backing in his own seat of Twickenham.

The last liberal recovery was founded in localism, campaigning and standing as a progressive party. The 2017 manifesto showed that the core of those ideas remains unchanged. What the party have lost their identity. It must be the new leader's priority to get it back.

General Election 2017 - A hopeful night for progressives: It's time to do opposition right

The provisional results, that give the Conservative-Unionist pact a very slim working majority.

The aim for progressives going into last night was supposed to be damage control. As it happened, they'd gone above and beyond - in fact, as the night went on, matters so very nearly tipped the Conservatives right out of government.

It will be interesting to see as the turnout is broken down to see how much of it came down to tactical voting among progressives - not organised by the parties, but voters themselves taking the lead and making their presence felt.

In the end, progressives had to settle for seeing off the Tory advance - a goal achieved with surprising comfort in the end. It came with the cherry topper of handing Theresa May an embarrassing rejection. She demanded the country unite around her and the country said no.

So much for strong and stable.

Theresa May has lost the Conservative majority and is now left dependent upon Arlene Foster and the Democratic Unionist Party - very recently hit by scandal and criticised over mismanagement in government at Stormont - to form a government.

Despite the Conservatives constant criticism of coalitions and relying on regional parties, Theresa May showed no hesitation in cobbling together a government that relied on the support of a narrowly focused regional party with some extreme views.

While the Conservatives deal with despondency, Labour are in a jubilant mood. Although celebrating and calling this a victory might be a little loose with the truth, it's a clear step forward.

In fact it is plenty enough for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to be justified in their stance that Labour are right now ready to govern as a minority government. It is a strong and confident stance they need to push and Labour MPs need to echo and reinforce.

You have to wonder if Corbyn and McDonnell always understood that Labour's route back to government would always take two elections. Last night they defied a threat of Tory advance, and revitalised themselves at home in their own seats.

Much criticised from within the party or focusing on boosting the party itself, in its own constituencies and ranks of members first, the strategy paid off. Labour's heartlands remained so and young turned out in droves.

Labour even expanded threateningly into Tory country. They took down junior ministers and established a following in the seats of senior ministers, that ran their incumbents very close and place them well for the next big push.

That will be at the next election. It will be a big moment for Labour. They've placed themselves breathing down the necks of the Conservatives and there will be no excuse next time. The platform is now there to launch Labour are into government.

However, Labour winning an election these days requires more than just Labour wins. It needs Liberal Democrat wins too. Last night the Lib Dems showed that they could win, but their performance was otherwise absurdly erratic.

From the nine seats they began the night with with, the party held four seats, lost five seats and gained eight seats. The Lib Dems also had a number of close calls either way - they really could have ended with anything from eight to eighteen seats.

The party largely held up its share of the vote - likely losing some to tactical voting, while gaining a little too. But the party could have hoped for a lot more and there will be some introspection among liberals in the days to come.

Honestly, considering the party's whole campaign at a distance, it's hard not to see Tim Farron's leadership as being compromised, despite the overall slight improvement in the party's position.

The leadership seemed to misjudge the public mood, unwaveringly focusing it's campaign on Brexit and rerun referendums, when many who the Lib Dems had to pitch to appear to have either gotten passed or not cared about in the first place.

And then there were the blunders Farron himself made, that were just plain ridiculous. No leaders of liberals should find themselves getting stuck with the label of intolerance on questions of support for LGBT and abortion rights.

The party's messy night speaks to the lack of clear message that connects values to policies to people, and resonated with an audience - as if the party simply wasn't sure to who exactly it was pitching it's ideas.

The return of Jo Swinson to the Commons for East Dunbartonshire on a clear majority perhaps presents the Liberal Democrats with a viable alternative leader - a woman, not least, outspoken and capable. All things the Lib Dems need to put at the forefront.

The SNP also had a dramatic night. While it is obviously on the one hand a tactic of media management to play down seat losses as best as possible, it was not unreasonable in this case. There really wasn't anywhere for the SNP to go after they swept Scotland last time out and the monopoly couldn't last.

The drama came from who the Lib Dems lost seats to: the Tories. Before the independence referendum that would have been, nearly, unthinkable. But last night, the Tories pretty much saved their political skins with gains in Scotland.

Their gains brought a particularly sad loss: Angus Robertson has lost his Moray seat. Sadly, Robertson will no longer bring his impressive performances to bear from the opposition benches in the Commons.

The big question going ahead now will be who can maintain their vote share and move forward. On several fronts, the Tories seem to have hit a wall that suggests they've maximised their reach. Labour, in contrast, broke new ground.

For Labour, this is a platform to win from. However, to turn that potential into a reality will depend upon keeping young voters, particularly first time voters, engaged and coming back time and again - and that will mean rewarding their engagement.

Labour also has to make a big pitch to Wales over the next five years. Voters in Wales shielded Labour last night, but the party hasn't really earned it - even with Corbyn's bright new manifesto. It has to start delivering.

There is a progressive majority. Seventeen million voted for the Centre-Left, while fifteen million went for the Right. Yet there is a Conservative government - a Hard Right Blue-Orange Loyalist coalition, no less.

It's mandate and majority are thin. Labour has a platform to fight and overturn that now, but first things first. All of the progressive parties have to get opposition right. There can be no messing around this time.

All progressive parties - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens - have to start coordinating. And right now. Right from the start. The infighting must stop. The progressives turning fire on each other must stop.

All focus now has to be on holding the government to account, to prevent its Hard Right nature from getting out. On LGBT, on abortion, on human rights, on welfare - there are so many crossovers for progressives were opposition will be needed.

Corbyn's result has restored hope to progressives. It has trammelled the Conservatives. The time to make that count is now. The next election campaign starts now - and this time it'll be a fight progressives can win.

General Election 2017 - Liberal Democrat Manifesto: Practical pitch to rebuild trust

Change Britain's Future is a practical pitch to rebuild trust - but that's a difficult task to accomplish.

Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Democrat promise of a second referendum on the final deal for leaving Europe has dominated their manifesto launch. It's in the manifesto's leading pages, at the head of Tim Farron's speech and all over the news.

However, at the front and centre of their election pitch the Liberal Democrats have put a collection of policies aimed at young people. Rent-to-Own, where rent buys a stake in a home that becomes outright owned over thirty years.

The restoring of young people's housing benefit. A new young person's bus pass. Universal free school meals at primaries. More money for the pupil premium. More investment in schools and colleges. Reinstatement of maintenance grants. More apprenticeships. Even votes at sixteen.

These policies are very much about practical things that can be done today to help build towards the future. In all areas, this manifesto has the same focus - what measured step can be taken now that prepares us for what's ahead?

But for the Lib Dems, the central aim at this election can only be to regain trust and recover ground. Tim Farron admitted as much at the Royal College of Nurses as he explained his party's spending plans for healthcare.

The Lib Dems have reached back into the vault and dusted off their Penny in the Pound plans, from the days when Charles Kennedy was the party leader. At that time, it was for education funding - and was proposed for such by Willie Rennie in Scotland.

For the UK, Tim Farron has called for this extra penny to be used to fund healthcare. It's a progressive tax, that will raise far more from those at the top than the bottom and would raise £6 billion a year, a significant addition to NHS funding.

But what is particularly important about the pitch is that Farron connected this policy with the need to be and honest about what it takes to fund the things the public wants.

That concern runs through the Lib Dem manifesto. The pitch to young people is full of practical affordable measures. Proposals that would be uncontroversial to deliver, but which could have profoundly positive effects.

On the NHS, the Lib Dems spell out exactly what it will cost people to support public healthcare as it presently stands. That includes levelling with working class people that they'll pay on average £30 more in tax each year.

The money raised would to go to restoring the NHS budget, to repairing ailing social care and supporting mental health care. These funds would accompany a review of how to better integrate these elements - and create parity for mental and physical health.

On the economy, the Lib Dems call for more investment to end the reliance upon a finance sector feeding on a bloated housing sector and dangerous levels of private debt. And that means being prepared to spend money in government.

While the party commits to balancing the government's Current account, they also call for £100 billion in Capital spending over the long term - on projects like broadband roll out, expanding and modernising schools and hospitals, along with roads and rails and coordinating with private investment in renewable energy.

And that extends into housing. The party promises to achieve the rate of 300,000 new homes built a year, for sale and rent. End the sell of Housing Association homes, let local authorities borrow to build and enable them to levy a 200% Council Tax penalty on second homeowners or landlords who leave homes empty.

On work, there are commitments to an independent review of the Living Wage and how to make it work, to stamping out the abuse of Zero Hours Contracts and encourage more employee share-ownership.

This is joined by reforms to welfare. Giving parents more earning leeway on Universal Credit, end the benefit freeze, reverse cuts to Employment Support Allowance, scrap the Bedroom Tax and Work Capability Assessment and more paid paternity leave.

There is also a direct stab at the Conservatives in a pledge to reverse tax cuts and remove loopholes to get the wealthiest "paying their fair share". These include reversing the Corporation Tax cut, that lowered it from 20% to 17%, and ending a series of tax 'relief' policies given to the rich.

The whole manifesto reads as a practical pitch to rebuild trust.

What it is not, though - to be realistic - is a manifesto that will see action in government. Tim Farron has ruled out entering a coalition after the election and it would take perhaps the biggest electoral upset in British history to get the party in government.

That makes it important to consider the Liberal Democrat pitch as part of a broader opposition picture and ask: are there grounds for cooperation with other progressive parties?

Both Labour and the Lib Dems have called for a major programme of capital investment. They both want significant increases in house building. Their is a willingness in both parties to raise taxes, weighted more on the rich, to fund essential services.

If the progressive alliance is going to work, voters need to feel that their tactical vote is going to support a set of broad values regardless of which party is strongest in their locality. So it is important that there is a lot of common ground to be found in these areas across the progressive opposition.

Despite the determination to present Labour under Corbyn as a party of the hard left, progressive parties are standing in much the same space - and that space is Keynesian. Investing for the future and practical spending to address the issues of today.

The big question, in the longer term, for the Liberal Democrats themselves is whether this June they can begin to rebuild trust. Whether they can succeed won't just depend on getting bums in seats on 8th June, but in standing by these pledges in opposition after the dust settles.

The headlines are dominated by the Labour Party, but the progressive movement goes on beyond its factional strife

Progressive politics goes on, far beyond the limits of Labour and its grimly destructive leadership civil war. Photograph: Protesters outside last Autumn's Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

The summer recess is usually the slow news time for British politics. This summer was supposed to be different. The two big parties, Labour and Conservative, side by side, would hold leadership races, setting the political agenda for the return to business in September. However, the Conservative race saw Theresa May blast away the field in short order.

That left the leadership challenge in the Labour Party to hold the spotlight all by itself. And that contest, with all of its chaos and rancour - including the party taking legal action against its own leader and even its own membership - has been a sour experience for progressives. To try and balance out the negativity of Labour's internal wrangling, here is a look at what other progressive party's and groups have been up to around Britain over the summer.

Sadiq Khan and London

In London, Sadiq Khan has set out early to establish himself in his new role as Mayor of London. One of his very first appearances was at London Pride - a strong progressive symbol with which to start his time in office. There will be arguments about his policies, but what Khan has gotten right, so far, has been image.

If there is anything with which the Left has traditionally struggled, and which can do so much to energise support for progressive policies, it is presenting a bright and positive vision. In Canada, Justin Trudeau led the Liberals back to power with a positive feeling campaign, and the image Khan's has projected bares much in the way of comparison - not least their appearances at Pride events.

On policy, the one issue that has stood out so far, and on which Khan has been particularly strident, is arguing for greater autonomy for the city. Part of the post-Brexit response, but also part of a movement emerging across Europe, Khan wants London to have more devolved powers to help is combat the predicted negatives resulting from leaving the European Union.

Khan has been making a determined push, post-Brexit, with his social media hashtag "#LondonIsOpen", getting celebrities and athletes on board in support. It seems to be the sum and central theme of Khan's start as Mayor: open to all people and open to business, everyone is welcome.

When talking of London, it is also worth mentioning the work of Take Back the City, a grassroots political and community organisation that aims to get directly to people in London's communities and make their voices heard. Amina Gichinga, a member of the group and London Assembly candidate, took part in the Progressive Alliance event in July. Gichinga made a strong and eloquent case, very much worth watching, for what needs to change in how politics is conducted in Britain.

Liberal Democrats

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats continue their rebuilding efforts. The party seems to have returned to what it did best, focussing on local and community politics. At the 2016 local elections, the Lib Dems made the most gains of any party and has since continued to win local elections with growing numbers.

But to restore the party's tarnished image is a much broader work. To that end, on the wider British scene, Tim Farron has been trying put the party to work fighting on key issues. One such issue was Brexit, on which Farron confirmed the Lib Dem commitment to Europe and aligned the party with the 48% who voted to stay.

Most recently, Farron has been critical of vague promises from the Treasury to match European Union funding in the near future. He has called for the government to show where the alleged £350m a week of funding will come from and demanded that long term reassurances be given to those who depend on it can make important long term decisions.

Various leading members of the party have also associated themselves with efforts to build cross-party cooperation. Vince Cable took part in the Progressive Alliance event, proposing an electoral pact come the next general election, and Paddy Ashdown is backing More United, an effort to promote crowdfunding of candidates on the basis of values rather than party allegiances.

That attitude to cooperation is reflected in Wales, where, now with just one Assembly Member, the Lib Dems have entered into Coalition government with Labour. Former leader Kirsty Williams took on the office of Education - and has stated absolute opposition, on behalf of Wales' Coalition, to the reintroduction of grammar schools.

Caroline Lucas and the Greens

Last, but not least, are the Greens. The Green Party as a whole has made small gains, but still haven't made the major breakthrough - on the verge of which they seem to have been for a decade. In Scotland, at the 2016 elections, the Greens moved into fourth place. Yet in London they merely retained their seats and in Wales got nowhere near the seats.

However, their sole MP Caroline Lucas has been amongst the most active and most visible of the Left's political figures and campaigners over the first half of the year. From her NHS Bill, to campaigning for cross-party cooperation and a Progressive Alliance; Lucas has been the most visible, perhaps bar Sadiq Khan, and certainly the most outspoken, coherent and unabashed leader - not in title but in deed - amongst progressives.

Punching far above the weight of her one seat out of six hundred and fifty, her loud advocacy for pluralism in politics has helped move forward the campaign for proportional representation and for cooperation between progressives. Lucas has announced that she will run again for the party leadership, a move that many may see as important to the party's near future development - considering her visibility and popularity.

Progress and Pluralism

The future of the Left depends on more than who is the Labour Party leader. That's a hard message to accept, particularly for those who feel the blows from the Conservative axe most weightily and fear that Labour is only party with a realistic shot at displacing the axe-swingers. But the party has used that fear as a way to gouge support for decades, while alienating potential supporters all the while and shutting down any plurality of debate.

The Left can be about more than just one, jealous, centralising party. The Left is a place of diversity: civil rights, equality, sustainability, justice, cooperation, feminism, democracy, liberalism, radicalism, the individual and the community - thousands of voices with thousands of issues. Trying to force them all into one tent, to represent them all with one voice, hasn't worked and won't.

Through debate, discussion, thinking, testing and embracing a myriad of perspectives, the Left has the broad resources to build positive and inclusive visions. The sooner Labour embraces pluralism, the sooner progressives can start fighting back against conservatism, in ways that play to their strengths - because the path of pluralism is not division and weakness: it is strength in diversity.

Universal suffrage, for all adult citizens, is a basic principle that should be without controversy - including votes at 16

On Wednesday, the Lords voted to defeat the government on the matter of Votes at 16 (Watt, 2015) - which would allow those of the ages 16 and 17 to vote in the EU referendum. Putting aside for the moment the odd fact that the unelected chamber has intervened once again in pursuit of a progressive purpose, the vote in the Lords has brought back to the table an important matter.

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, put it succinctly (Farron, 2015):

"It is hypocrisy of the worst kind to argue against votes at 16 for the EU referendum. The government accepts that at 16 you are mature enough to serve in the Armed Forces, be married and pay tax, and they should now give these same people the right to vote."

The past two centuries in Britain have seen a long, and slow, progressive march towards ending democratic discrimination. First came the ending of class and wealth discrimination that excluded the 99% who were not aristocrats or wealthy property owners. Then came, in slow and apportioned amounts, the end of gender and race discrimination at the ballot box.

None of those gains have been perfect. Lords and Bishops still sit in Parliament without election. Women are still sorely under represented in elected offices, as are representatives from minorities. Wealthy and propertied men still far exceed those from poorer backgrounds. And, age remains a barrier for those of the ages of 16 and 17 - despite their ability to actively participate in society.

It is a basic liberal democratic principle that, should you have to abide by the rules and customs of a society, you should have the right to a voice in deciding those rules and customs. A society can only be said to have true universal suffrage when all those who are adult citizens have access to same rights for compliance with the same duties.

Only through being consistent and inclusive, as well as promising representative results, can democracy invigorate and engage rather disenchant. Electoral reform is sorely needed, and an important part of those reforms will be votes at 16.

Local and provincial communities are showing the chief internationalist value of empathy in the face of the refugee crisis

The Greek Island of Lesbos, where locals have voluntarily rescued and cared for refugees. Photograph: Mytilene, Lesvos Island by Anna Apostolidou (License) (Cropped)

The past decade has seen the rise of two forms of nationalism in Europe. One is a vaguely Left-leaning provincial separatism and the other is a Right-wing nation-state sovereigntism. Both of them have found support expressed both at elections and in popular protest.

For internationalists, who have struggled for fifty years to open up Europe and break down its borders, the return of nationalism - of any stripe - has been seen, and treated, as a threat. In that mindset, no differentiation has been made between these different kinds of nationalism.

This isn't particularly surprising. To an internationalist, a return to nationalism represents a retreat into a closed-minded, closed society. The fear is that such a closed state would only further the alienation of people from others living elsewhere in Europe and so result in a substantial decrease in common understanding and empathy.

In light of the Eurozone's imperious attitude towards Syriza and Greece, it isn't hard to see why internationalism has struggled to make its case. The European Union, the great internationalist project, has been hijacked by national conservatism as a means to spread and enforce its social and economic beliefs. But, more than any other factor, it is migration that has exposed the tensions that Right-wing nationalism feeds upon: the fear of the other, the anxiety of difference.

Those anxieties have found particular expression in the UK, where the Foreign Secretary and even the Prime Minister have made dangerous and dehumanising references to migrants - humans travelling to escape poverty and war - as 'marauding' 'swarms' (Perraudin, 2015; Elgot & Taylor, 2015). It is the pinnacle of internationalist fears that people who are safe in settled stable societies, though scared and rattled by an ongoing financial slump, could show such a lack of empathy for the plight of those whose lives and homes are torn apart by violence, terrorism, war and poverty.

From refugees to migrant workers, exploited for everything from farming to prostitution (Lawrence, 2015; Harper, 2015), there is a painful tendency to blame these victims rather than those exploiting their desperation.

In the UK, part of that comes in a gross overstatement of the scale of the 'threat' posed by migration. Contrary to the opinion of UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, the overwhelming majority of migrants are not 'economic', but refugees fleeing from dangerous situations (Kingsley, 2015).

With a continental population of 750 million, and a European Union population of 500 million, it is unsurprising that a United Nations expert - Francois Crepeau, UN special rapporteur on the humans rights of migrants - believes it would be not only feasible but practical and desirable to offer resettlement of one million Syrian refugees, across the continent, over a period of five years (Jackson, 2015; Jackson, 2015{2}), as a way to end the present humanitarian catastrophe.

However, his recommendations seem as if they'll fall on deaf ears as national governments, retreating deep into sovereigntist nationalism in the face of the financial crisis, aggressively reaffirm national borders and national control over decision-making.

And yet, even as governments, like that of Greece, have struggled under the weight of debt and austerity and have been stretched to breaking in managing the refugee crisis (Kingsley & Henley, 2015), or have turned inwards to exploit anger and mistrust, there are still beacons of hope for those who champion commonality beyond borders.

Where governments are failing, volunteers, local activists and communities have taken up the responsibility. On Greek islands, even in the midst of their own crisis, locals have saved refugees from their stranded boats, taken them in, fed them and provided them with supplies and shelter (Kingsley, 2015{2}; McVeigh, 2015).

In such actions, in their wilful choice of empathy in defiance of the establishment, there is hope for internationalism. What there is for the internationalists still to see, however, is how to comprehend that this empathy, this pursuit of self-determination and anti-establishment opposition to hegemony, has also been at the root of the Left-leaning separatist 'nationalism'.

These ideals are what have differentiated the Left-leaning separatism from the Right-leaning sovereigntist nationalism. The open, reformist, pro-European attitudes, so deeply connected to internationalism, can be seen in the motivations of voters electing separatists - particularly in Scotland where the SNP want to break away from the UK, which is itself rapidly turning inwards, in order to remain an integrated part of a wider Europe.

That pattern has been repeated from Catalunya to Greece to the Green Party in the UK, where Caroline Lucas had called for reform of the old establishment - nationally and continentally - in pursuit of Europe's founding principles of co-ordination, co-operation and solidarity (Lucas, 2015).

The current crisis has internationalists, like the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, calling for more compassion and more positive action to alleviate suffering during this crisis (Leftly, 2015).

But in order to address the crisis in full, the difference between nationalists, retreating in fear to the shelter of the old institutions, and the separatists who want self-determination, reform and progress, has to be comprehended. In the one, nationalism, is national, social and fiscal conservatism that is driving a wedge between people. In the other, separatism, there are radical and democratic ideas to which internationalists are instinctively drawn.

To build a comprehensive movement that supports internationalism and human rights, across borders, with a broad empathy, means understanding all of the different strains of local, provincial and international activism that are so closely interlinked in their values. With such an alliance, in the spirit of the solidarity that has been seen in the anti-austerity movement, the compassionate empathy of Greek Islanders could be turned into a general, political and even economic campaign for human dignity and the common good.

Liberal Democrat Leadership Election: Who's who and what do they stand for?

The Liberal Democrat leadership election is the first step to recovery for a party whose voice is being missed in the campaign to protect human rights in Britain.

After the party's electoral collapse in May, the Liberal Democrats have run an accelerated campaign to elect a new leader to replace Nick Clegg. Voting will come to an end on 15th July and the results will be announced the following day.

Clegg's resignation has, dramatic as it was following the party's disastrous election night, been seen as a long delayed inevitability (Wintour & Watt, 2015). Ultimately, the decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives seems to have been something from which the party could not recover.

And yet, early indications suggest that the party nonetheless possesses an enduring appeal. Their presence is already being missed in the defence of civil rights and liberties (The Guardian, 2015), and council bye-elections are already being won (Steerpike, 2015).

However, their collapse has raised a question within the party, one that has importance for all of the parties across the Centre-Left (Kettle, 2015). Is the response to the election loss to move Left and embrace more idealistic positions, or to move Right and try to win voters away from the Conservatives directly?

For the Liberal Democrats this has been distilled into the nominated candidates. The candidate representing continuity with Clegg, seen as the Centrist and Centre-Right wing of the party which is concerned with being a practical party of government, is Norman Lamb. The more Left-leaning candidate, which in the case of the Lib Dems means embracing its campaigning and grassroots tendencies, is Tim Farron.

Norman Lamb

Norman Lamb served in the last government as a Minister of State for Care and Support, a position he pursued with a personal passion. He has made a point of vociferous campaigning on issues of mental health, and was deeply involved in the party's aims of putting mental health onto an equal footing with physical health (Lamb, 2015).

Lamb is very much the designated heir of the Centrist liberal faction that took the party into the Coalition - something reflected in the endorsements he has received, which include Clegg's closest supporter and former party leader Paddy Ashdown (Lindsay, 2015). Little can symbolise that more distinctly in the minds of voters than the fact that Lamb voted for the Coalition reforms to tuition fees (BBC, 2010).

So far Lamb has argued that the party should not retreat to its comfort zone (Lamb, 2015{2}), a sentiment likely reflected by those in the liberal centre. Yet, at the same time he argued for new ways to tackle economic inequality that are not based on old models of redistribution - singling out mutuals and social enterprises as things that liberals 'instinctively' support.

Tim Farron

Tim Farron remained aloof of the government during the last parliament, during which he served as the party president - a position from which he was often a voice critical towards the coalition (Greenwood, 2015). As might be expected, he voted against the coalition tuition fee changes (BBC, 2010).

The MP for Westmoreland and Lonsdale has received the endorsement of the party's more radical, campaigning, Left - including former leader David Steel, who was very critical of how the Coalition was handled (Steel, 2015) - and the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish Lib Dems (Perraudin, 2015). He also, notably, has the endorsement of both The Guardian and the New Statesman (The Guardian, 2015{2}; New Statesman, 2015).

Farron's main distinctive positions came up in the debate between the candidates at 2015 Conference of the Social Liberal Forum group (Lindsay, 2015{2}). He displayed his openness to liberals increasing taxes to fund public services and expressed a willingness, should he become leader, to not get into conflicts with the party conference policy making processes. Farron has also stressed his intention of rebuilding the parties grassroots and so increasing party membership 100,000 by 2020 (Farron, 2015).

Quiet establishment man or the problematic firebrand?

Voices in the social liberal and liberal centre wings of the party have their own reasons for leaning either way. Those in the liberal centre argue that there is value in the consistency of remaining in the Centre, from which the party's only opportunities to make its policies a reality will come through coalition with the Conservatives or with Labour (Tall, 2015).

For social liberals, however, there were important things ignored by the party leadership from 2010 onwards (Howarth, 2015; Smith, 2015). They argue that the leadership abandoned the radical Left-of-Centre causes and ideals, upon which they had been elected, in favour of a Centrist coalitionism - built around stability, unity and the embrace of a Toryism-lite - for which they had no mandate and were duly punished.

The Guardian has argued that there is a need for a figure who can lead a 'charismatic insurgency' (The Guardian, 2015{2}). But there are also warnings against the danger of traumatised parties electing 'feel good', comfort zone, candidates (Kettle, 2015). That need for a comfort zone candidate may factor in if there is felt to be a strong need to distance the party from the previous leadership and its direction.

One way of ensuring that distance could be embracing the rebranding of the party, with talk going around of a possible name change. Changing the name of the party could be a powerful moment upon which to hang the interviews and coverage that would make clear how the Lib Dems have heard their critics and responded (Withnall, 2015). In that case, Tim Farron's detachment from the Coalition would seem to make him the more ideal candidate - and he has certainly floated the idea of a fresh start (Farron, 2015{2}).

Yet there remain lingering reservations about Farron, in regards to his seemingly anti-liberal personal stances on a number of pressing social issues from abortion to gay rights (Birrell, 2015). With the party desperately needing to regain trust and a consistent identity, his own inconsistency could well factor against him and the party.

Though Farron might suggest that these personal standings should have no bearing, it is hard to escape an overriding feeling that there is also a decision to be made between the candidates' different characters: the quiet and practical, though establishment, man or the problematic firebrand. It's as if liberals are once more being faced with the spectre of siding with Asquith or Lloyd George. A more easily unifying figure would have been preferable, such as Jo Swinson - who would surely have been a leading candidate had she retained her East Dunbartonshire seat.

Rebuilding trust

In The Guardian, back in 2006, the late Charles Kennedy argued that:

"Fewer people are joining political parties, yet single-issue pressure groups continue to flourish. Mass international movements - from opposition to the war in Iraq to last year's Live 8 - demonstrate how great issues and principles can still motivate on a huge scale. But somehow our current political culture seems unable to accommodate and address such concerns...

...The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger."

For Liberal Democrats, and liberals generally, this has become a matter of great importance. Regardless of who becomes party leader, their first task must be to regain political trust. That means carving out a distinctive position that the whole party can comfortably adhere to and, importantly, campaign on. It means opening the party to working with others for electoral and political reform and encouraging a progressive alliance, even if only informally.

From a pragmatic point of view, those will likely remain the priorities - for the moment at least. Anything else might simply lead to a division that would strip the party of any credibility it has left, which means that neither candidate is likely to pick a fight with the supporters of the other. As a result, the issues that arise between the Centre and Left strands of liberalism are likely to go unresolved in the present. This election will instead be about who leads, rather more than to what they lead the party.