Big question: Does Britain need a new political party?

A panel of contributors share their views

by Prospect Team / July 22, 2016 / Leave a comment

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron gives a speech following Britain's vote to "Leave" the European Union. Is

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron gives a speech following Britain’s vote to “Leave” the European Union. Might Liberal Democrats combine with disillusioned Labour and Conservative MPs to form a new political party? ©Isabel Infantes/EMPICS Entertainment

Shortly after the Brexit vote, when asked if he was open to creating a new political party, Tim Farron replied “We shouldn’t put any construct or constraint on what might happen next. People could come to us, they could set up another party, who knows. But there needs to be a realignment.”

The comments from the leader of the Liberal Democrats (who appears on this panel) came in the context of chaos in the Labour Party—a chaos that persists. The party’s MPs are seemingly entirely at odds with its membership on the issue of whether Jeremy Corbyn should remain leader. It has been suggested that this may present an opportunity for disillusioned Labour MPs to form a new political party with other Europhiles—including from the Conservative Party.

On Tuesday, the Guardian reported that a new cross-party “progressive alliance” has the support of Paddy Ashdown and Jonathon Porritt (also on this panel). Should those involved go one step further and push for an entirely new political party? Would the emergence of such a party be to Britain’s benefit? Our panellists answer.

A rallying call

Tim Farron, Leader of the Liberal Democrats

As Lib Dem leader it is my job to build a rallying point for those in all parties, and none, who are serious about wanting to build a party that will enter government and deliver a fairer, more competent society than the one we have. A government that cares about delivering a new deal for our NHS, building opportunity for our future generations through properly supporting our education system and doing so whilst acting in an economically responsible way.

I will work with pro-Europeans across all parties in this post-referendum climate, and more broadly I think it is important to make sure to make sure this century is more progressive than the last. I enjoyed working with people from other parties during the European Union Referendum, and I have always said I will work with anyone in any party to deliver liberal outcomes. But I think ultimately if you want…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Prospect’s Top Thinkers 2020—which salutes the scientists, philosophers and writers reshaping our times. We’ll also send you our weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics, economics, history, science, literature and the arts. You can, of course, unsubscribe from this newsletter at any time.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

13356377865fc4430b0d3b37.87306895

Go to comments

Share with friends

Comments

Isa F.
July 22, 2016 at 16:26
Do we need more than one new party? Reading Peter Hitchens above i was struck by the fact that we still think within a paradigm of Left = socially liberal + economically socialist (or leaning in that direction) and Right = socially conservative + free trade. But the evidence seems to be that those associations are breaking down. Many younger people are relatively right wing by conventional standards when it comes to economics but socially liberal, while the population which favours a more 'left wing' approach to economy (e.g. more social housing, subsidies for deprived areas) is often quite socially conservative. The Tories seem to have got that to some extent, hence the embrace of equal marriage. But what about Labour? New Labour tried in effect to move rightwards in its economic policy. Now the party's moved back, will it one day have to move to the right on social issues if it is to retain its voter base?
James
July 24, 2016 at 17:37
Peter Hitchens is absolutely spot on. The Conservatives transformed into New Labour, making the modern Labour Party redundant. But as they've become the "Toynbee party" they've left a huge gap for a proper conservative party - the Hitchens party. Could UKIP become that party? With their libertarian routes it seems unlikely. Perhaps Peter should get it touch with Mr Banks, he's talking about starting a new party and as May inevitably fails to deliver what the 52% voted for, there won't be a better opportunity!
BARRIE_SADLER
July 27, 2016 at 16:15
The problem is not so much that we need new parties, UKIP are answering a crie-de-coer from some of those who have lost faith in their parties and the SDP turned Lib Dem provide a focus for others. What is missing is the voice of leadership, Nicola Sturgeon provides that for Scotland and the success that follows is clear. Many thought the Brexit voices were the clarion call that was needed; only to find that was a false dawn as the leaders there funked it or showed that they were inadequate in some way. Jeremy Corbyn certainly can't provide the wide bandwidth leadership required nor does Owen Smith look like providing broad based appeal. Mrs May has yet to show her real colours but perhaps will inspire confidence. The real question therefore is not are our political groupings meeting the need, but where are we to find the leader with competence,courage and conviction who can provide leadership and motivation? Let us not forget that without vision the people perish.
David Burgess
July 30, 2016 at 10:35
What we need is a socially liberal + economically liberal party. Oh hang on - isn't that what the Lib-Dems are supposed to be?