[Boring Lib Dem internal chat]
The reason the Layla Pamphlet is worthy of criticism isn’t that it ‘shifts the Lib Dems to the centre-left’. The potential target-vote-losing problems are instead about trust and perceptions of economic competence.

(thread)
1/

Firstly, the party’s economic positioning is quite clearly already centre-left. Our manifesto in 2019 was the most redistributive of any of the major parties. Our main tax/spend message was “An extra 1p income tax for the NHS”. Centre-left.

2/

Secondly, our voters are also clearly centre-left, and understand us as such. I would encourage you to check out p_surridge@’s work on voter positioning on social and economic issues to back up this point:
https://twitter.com/jrhopkin/status/1275390839905230849

3/

Thirdly, Ed Davey (for one) is also advocating a centre-left platform: his two campaign policies so far are to increase public spending to tackle climate change, and to increase public spending to help carers. I don’t think us becoming “Yellow Cameroons” is a going concern.
4/

Now, Layla is absolutely correct to say that we have suffered from flip-flopping between centre-right and centre-left on economics in the past twenty years. We must remain consistently centre-left. No arguments here.

5/

But the point is, we are ALREADY there, so can not ‘shift’ in that direction. You can argue that this position needs to be better articulated, but that is a separate point.

6/

When people say that policies like UBI and free broadband are likely to put off the Soft Con voters we need to win over to take our target seats, they aren't (mostly) saying that “we can’t propose these things because these voters won’t vote for a centre-left party.”...
7/

...These policies are not problematic because they look centre-left; they are problematic because they look like needless giveaways.
8/

For example, UBI. In the Compass model of UBI cited by the pamphlet, the additional cost of the scheme would be ~£180bn without extra taxes. Here are just some of the problems with that:

9/

1. Opportunity cost. We spend only £100bn a year on education, by comparison - think of all the incredible, but far more targeted, things we could do with £180bn!

10/

2. Explain to me how giving rich families an additional £10k a year to reinvest in asset purchases will reduce inequality?

11/

3. Saying "ah yes but we'll also add more redistributive tax rises" doesn't cut it because you could have done that anyway, and in any case takes you well into "if you're explaining, you're losing" territory

12/

4. We could do so much more, far more cheaply, for people who actually need the money by making UC humane and more generous

13/

It’s not that I don’t love the idea of welfare based on dignity, not stigma. The personal freedom aspects of UBI (and also its use in pandemic-style situations) really appeal...

14/

But I tell you, if we take this policy into the next election it will fall apart under scrutiny and we’ll end up spending the whole campaign having to justify it.

15/

...The voters we need to win (who ARE overwhelmingly soft Con, btw, the data on this is indisputable) will look at this and will likely conclude that we are careless and untrustworthy. Just as they did with Corbyn.

16/

Simultaneously, we will lose our chance to talk about the big issues that are relevant to them, including the state of public services and the fact that their adult children can’t afford their own homes.

17/

So it’s not about being centre-left, it’s about appearing competent, serious, and relevant.

18/

I agree with Stephen Bush (as one should always try to do). I think we need two messages:

19/

...one to retain our Labour squeeze in our Tory-facing target seats (Climate + our current tax&spend position + not attacking Labour for a few years would do this)...

20/

...and one to win over soft Cons in those same seats (“We’ll lower house prices so your children can own their own home” is a strong candidate).

I don’t think the pamphlet is the right direction.

21/

To preempt some likely counter arguments:

22/

“Radical =/= left wing”.

When the core of the pamphlet is about economics, what else would ‘radical’ mean to the public, exactly? When you say “We’ll be more radical than Labour”, I don’t think people will assume you’re talking about drug policy or immigration...

23/

..In any case, I am skeptical that our target 2024 voter coalition will love the idea of a ‘radical’ party.

24/

“The Pamphlet isn’t Layla’s leadership platform” - well, this isn’t about Layla as a leadership candidate, but FWIW UBI certainly is part of her leadership platform...

25/

...And I’m not sure it’s fair to simultaneously say "Look at all these great ideas that Layla is championing, what vision!" and "Oh don't worry about the bits you don't like, she's only the pamphlet editor".

26/

“Cut through is more important than policy.” Again, I’m not talking about the leadership candidates, but FWIW I think this could very well be true.

27/

As an afterthought, some people are making the separate point that we shouldn’t be primarily DEFINED by our economic position, but instead on our liberal-authoritarian position...

28/

...This is not the same argument as saying “we shouldn’t be economically centre-left”, and I think makes a lot of sense in terms of our long term USP. But that’s a discussion for another day.

29/

Finally, it is great to see the enthusiasm and energy contained in this pamphlet, there was a lot in it I really liked, and I think it’s worthy of our traditional role as a party of ideas.

30/

If you think I’m off on any of this, please do comment! We make better decisions as a party through discussion and challenge.

31/