The Leadership Election So Far: or, Why I’m Leaning Layla
This leadership election has been the most vacillating one we’ve had since I’ve been a member. I think this is a good thing: a rigorous debate is what we need. So long as the arguments remain in good faith, and the overarching sentiment is that of moving the cause further without needlessly aggressive infighting, then it’ll be a healthy process. So far that has remained the case, and I’ve been very impressed with the campaigns both candidates have fought so far. I’ve been a floating voter so far in this election, but having briefly been leaning Ed, I am now Leaning Layla.
I first joined the party just before the 2015 General Election, so I saw Norman Lamb battle with Tim Farron for the top job, with Farron largely seen to be tapping into the support base he had built up outside of but during the coalition. I backed Norman — I was oblivious to factional divides and strategic arguments due to my political immaturity, and thought Norman simply resonated with my newly found liberalism more. Five years later, I stand by my vote.
In 2019 I backed Jo but voted Ed, as I didn’t want his margin of loss to be too big. This was not and is never a good reason to vote for anyone, but frankly there was less than a piece of paper between them and I’m not sure anyone thought that leadership election actually mattered much. Some Ed supporters have decided in hindsight that the failures of Jo’s leadership in the 2019 election would not have happened under him, but I think this is counterfactual history and probably not true.
Somehow, this has become a left-right debate, despite both candidates declaring themselves to be on the left and radically anti-Tory. Layla has said she wants us to be ‘more radical than Labour’, and Ed has said he wants us to come to an informal ‘understanding’ with them akin to our relationship in the 90s. Note neither candidate has said we should tack to the left of Labour (cough, New Statesman, cough).
Either way — it’s clear that electing Layla will signal to the electorate that we have moved on from the coalition, and that we are tacking left in tone, if not policy from where we currently are. Voting Ed would be a firm statement that we should defend our record and demonstrate the strength that liberalism has on the core issue of climate change, and he’s identified an under-discussed but very important policy area that is social care. Both of the campaigns make convincing cases for why these two visions should be better placed to take us forward, but ultimately I find Layla’s pitch more convincing, as I’ll explain through this piece.
In terms of policy, again, there’s very little that actually separates the candidates. It should be taken into consideration too that there’s debate around exactly how important the role of leader is in terms of shaping policy. Though they chair the Federal Policy Committee, ultimately members decide what policy gets passed at conference. Indeed, had Nick Clegg had his way, we never would have promised to abolish tuition fees and who knows where we’d be now. However, electing a leader on specific policy platforms (e.g, say Wera won on a rejoin platform) that would effectively guarantee they get passed at conference. As we saw in 2019, the policies proposed by leaders become defacto confidence votes.
What does matter, however, is what a leader represents in the eyes of voters. A post-coalition leader who unequivocally states their position as anti-Tory and on the left would do much to clear the ground of coalition baggage that has been a distraction since 2015. Yes, the left would still find ways to use coalition as a stick to beat us with, but not having a leader with a ‘dodgy’ voting record to defend certainly helps. To be clear, I’m a fan of the coalition and I think coalition ministers’ voting records are perfectly defensible, but it’s an argument that takes time to explain. It’s easier to just move on.
One of the core debates in this election has been around electoral strategy. Everyone has acknowledged that the majority of our target seats are Tory facing — the debate is about how to win them. Critics of Layla have suggested that a tonal shift to the left bears the risk of alienating the crucial Tory switchers we need to win those key marginals. Remember, incumbent votes count double that of a third party we’re trying to squeeze.
Another point in favour of this argument is that in most of these seats, the Labour vote has already been squeezed as far as it can be, and have lower vote shares than when we held them. A former coalition minister as leader (or at least a leader not radically departing the position we currently occupy) would reassure Tory voters that they can vote for us.
What this argument misses is that we’re a third party that’s the product of a two party system. In this three body problem, whether a right-leaning voter votes for us depends more on the risk of letting the left wing party in than whether the centre party is more or less centre left. In 2015 we were crushed because Con/Lib switchers were terrified of some kind of Lab/SNP/Lib coalition that may arise should the Tories lose the ability to form a majority or coalition government.
The spectre of Corbyn similarly hindered us in 2017 and 2019. For the most part, they didn’t actually care how left wing or centrist we were, only how radically left the Labour leader was. Keir Starmer simply doesn’t have that Tory-Terrifying-Trot image, and it’s clear Labour would not enter into an SNP coalition. This argument is borne out by our electoral success in the past under New Labour. When Labour is electorally viable, so are we. What’s more, Layla herself won Oxford West and Abingdon — a Tory facing seat — on the very platform she wants to pivot the party to.
The point is that we don’t actually need to worry about ‘alienating Tories’ — that’s not actually our job. Our job is to be a radically liberal voice that is an effective anti-Tory campaign machine, that also reigns in Labour’s authoritarian instincts, which clearly have not gone away under Starmer’s leadership. Being the strongest voice on Trans rights, racial justice, and capital L Liberalism is our job. That’s not to say Ed can’t do those things — he can. But I think Layla can much more authentically sell our party as occupying that space than Ed.
I want to briefly touch on the points that have given me pause for thought: the potential baggage around Layla’s past and her local NIMBYism.
On the first point, I think people are worried that this could do in 2024 what ‘gay sex’ did in 2017. I’m not sure it’s comparable for two reasons: first, Layla has already addressed this and released a statement on it and isn’t dodging the question in the same way Tim did, which only added fuel to the fire; second, ‘gay sex’ derailed us because it tapped into overarching narratives people already held about religious people in politics, as well as the Lib Dems more generally — I’m not sure Layla’s past will fit so neatly into people’s preconceived notions.
Stories matter — but only when they fit into other over-arching narratives. Ed Miliband’s bacon sandwhich moment mattered because it fed into the larger narrative of him as an awkward ‘north London Geek’. Our overarching narrative that’s used against us is that we’re Tory-lite, liars, and so on. Layla’s incident doesn’t feed into that — in fact electing her would do the opposite.
Another potential pitfall is Layla’s NIMBYism. As a vociferous opponent of the green belt and advocate of building a house on anything not currently occupied by a public space, Layla’s local Oxford campaigns have given me the most pause. It’s a faustian pact most otherwise radical Liberals have to make to get elected. I am also extremely disappointed by the comments she made at a Young Liberals panel a couple years ago, and am very much on John Elledge’s side in that debate, as well as in agreement with Vince that we should build on golf courses.
However, the fact of the matter is that most MPs and councillors of all parties have made similar concessions to local boomer NIMBY groups, and our national policy remains strong. It’s not an electoral liability — which is all that matters in this context — so long as our housing policy remains radical on a national level, and local housing policy remains a relatively non-partisan issue.*
I really like and respect Ed. I think his record in government is stellar, and he’s a strong advocate for the kind of liberalism I really believe in. His personal and political life stories are both inspiring, and the world would be a better place if more MPs were like him: dedicated, passionate, ambitious. His call for our relationship with Labour to be a subtle one, not to be conducted in public in the form of a full blown alliance is sensible and we should heed his caution.
However, for the reasons I’ve set out above, I think Layla’s vision of the party is what we need at the moment as liberals in this current climate. I think she can take us into 2024 with a positive argument about what Liberal Democrats can do to shape this country for the better, and I remain unconvinced that her potential downsides would be electorally worrisome. On the same token, Ed’s downside (coalition) remains an albatross around our neck. I wish it wasn’t — but we have to face the political reality and move on.
Normally these endorsements end with something like ‘this is why I’m backing [candidate], and I hope you do too’. I’m not going to say that. I think both candidates are fantastic and I will happily fight for the party under whoever leads it. If you’re still undecided, that’s fine. We’ve got till August. I won’t be actively campaigning for Layla — and I may even change my mind by August. Either way, for once I’m actually optimistic about being a Lib Dem, and that feels good.
*I think it should absolutely be a partisan issue: I think Lib Dems should run on a YIMBY platform locally everywhere and actually give meaning to parties on a local level.