"Lib Dems" spelled out in Scrabble pieces

Former Cambridge MP David Howarth and Liberal Democrat Newswire editor Mark Pack have been taking a look at the evidence on what the Liberal Democrats need to do to recover from the May 2015 general election disaster.

Here’s the second edition of their booklet (published January 2016), setting out a new strategy for the party. It is based on building a larger core vote for the Liberal Democrats and rooted in the evidence about who shares

They set out the evidence showing why the party needs to build a larger core vote, and how the Liberal Democrats can go about doing just that, based on appealing to the 20%+ slice of the electorate who share the party’s values:

Download this document

Find out how the party’s attempts to rebuild actually go with the exclusive analysis and news each month in Liberal Democrat Newswire:

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
43 comments
peter8
peter8

I like the core vote idea. There are the challenges of identifying and converting those who are not Lib Dems already. I agree issues like Hong Kong and Yugoslavia are essential though human rights and liberty are similar and more pertinent to many. The vital thing is to distinguish us.

I also agree that valence on campaigning on these issues is important. They need to be long term projects or at least merge into new similar ones to keep these voters. Online surveys are useful in including "Would campaigning on these issues make you more likely to vote Liberal Democrat at the next election?"


We will be campaigning with single issue organisations for these loyalties though there is no reason why people should not support both though only if a political party can show some relevance and reward for this loyalty.


I think the opportunity to discuss the above issues such as Syrians is important; a Facebook page might work. It is the opportunity to meet like minded people that draws me to certain groups. I think we would need a person who sole function is to work on thematic issues on a UK wide basis.

MarkMills1
MarkMills1

Very much agree that this is the kind of direction the party needs to go in and don't disagree with any of your substantive proposals.

But I worry our window of opportunity might have closed. It feels that by choosing Corbyn, Labour have laid a pretty firm claim to the kind of culturally tolerant left leaning voters we might otherwise have gone hunting for. Do you have any thoughts on how we prise them away from a Labour that's now catering to them at the expense of the rest of the electorate?

MarkPack
MarkPack moderator

@MarkMills1  That's an important point. There should be - and we need to make clear that there is - a big difference between the sort of liberal centre-left ground which the Liberal Democrats want to build out from and the more left-wing territory which Jeremy Corbyn inhabits.

For example, Corbyn has been quite a fan of authoritarian governments which don't follow international norms on human rights but which happen to be (and from what I understand of his views, this isn't a coincidence) anti-American.

Similarly his economic policies lack the sort of support for individual freedom and enterprise that Tim Farron set out in his economics speech a few weeks back. For Corbyn it is much more a matter of central government control ordering others how to behave. 

Or on green issues, Corbyn's desire to re-open British coal mines runs counter to the Lib Dem concern for moving to a carbon-neutral future.

Steve Comer
Steve Comer

Lib Dems DID start to build a core vote during the Ashdown & Kennedy years. Its no accident that we won target seasts in Urban 'university' areas like Cambridge, Cardiff Central, Bristol West, Leeds NE, Manchester Withington etc. Many of these voters were professionals, and quite a lot worked in the public sector, the voluntary or in IT companies, consultancies etc that worked in the public realm. Trouble was in the Clegg years we managed to upset most of the very people we had taken so long to recruit. Not just with tuition fees, but with a negative attitude towards public sector workers exemplified by enthusiastic support for pay freezes, increased pension contributions, and reduced benefits. We also failed to see the negative impact coalition can bring. This is not news, the FDP and the Irish Labour Party have both faced the same problem many time.

Neil Lewis
Neil Lewis

This is great - I certainly agree on the making policy making dynamic and real time - as the Police & Crime Commissioner Candidate for Cheshire it can feel that we are 'making up policy' due to an absence of any response from the LibDem centre or any obvious place to go to check how we might respond to issues of the day. Also, I rushed to your section on 'where to find' the core vote - noted that they are slightly more likely to use Facebook and Twitter - but hoped you'd be more specific on where to find them - so, I thought I'd share this from our campaign here in Cheshire... "Wondered why we are majoring on Facebook? Here's what my favourite VC says on how Start-ups find new customers... 'Returning to advertising, what we’ve seen at Forward Partners over the last year is that Google and Facebook are where startups have the most joy finding new customers, and increasingly it is Facebook rather than Google. That’s because Google is more mature and has bigger companies with larger budgets are more active, driving up CPCs and crowding out startups. Facebook is newer and the larger budgets haven’t made it there yet.' "So, our campaign is a like start-up - high enthusiasm, low budgets and looking to scale customers / supporters fast - which is why we choose Facebook...."

Paul Gray
Paul Gray

All very true. Better though to sort out what a successful operation looks like than to worry about how hard all the little elves are working.

Julian Haring
Julian Haring

Using 50 year old skates, that were slow, dangerous and unfit for purpose...... How very apt.

Hilton Marlton
Hilton Marlton

Frank Phillips, Brychan Williams some holiday reading for you. Well worth it.

Paul Halliday
Paul Halliday

The strategy laid out in the link is what I'm trying to get us to work towards

Paul Halliday
Paul Halliday

Agree that's exactly what we are trying to do here in Newport. Tony Biaggi, Paul L'Allier, Michael Enea, Sarah-Louise Lockyer, Jeff Evans, Alexandra Coopey,

theChristophe
theChristophe

Coming to this late but wow, agree with all of this. Well done Mark and David. I particularly agree with the point on local parties and the need for campaigns at that level that still focus on national issues – I worry that the recent members who joined post-election may quickly disappear when they realise our local party machines seem stuck in an, as you say, pre-1990s campaign approach and seem obsessed with potholes, street cleaning and ‘stopping’ things from happening with no liberal explanation around why.

DennisWake
DennisWake

Is it correct that targeting seats was the reason for the increase in Liberal Democrat seats from 19 to 46 in 1997 ? A more likely reason is that the Conservative vote dropped substantially everywhere, the Liberal Democrat vote rose and in those seats where we previously came second or a strong third many Labour voters voted Liberal Democrat to unseat the local Conservative candidate.

NigelSarbutts
NigelSarbutts

I disagree with the thinking here because it ignores what conditions need to exist to allow the values espoused by your target to flourish. It's a bit like focusing on the top section of Maslow's hierarchy and thinking those values can exist without the bits underneath, I also the think the number of voters who fit your description is very small indeed.


A strategy which doesn't build on a clear proposition of how wealth can be created fairly and distributed fairly to enable more people to devote their efforts towards international development, charities and culture etc. is cart before horse. As far as I can see the words business, wealth and tax don't appear in the document or at least are not addressed. 


Neither of  the two main parties have authentic claims to own the idea of fair and sustainable wealth creation and this is a huge opportunity for the party.


paul zukowskyj
paul zukowskyj

Sorry, whilst I find much of the specific objectives are stuff we really have to do, specifically trying to build a core vote in a time when the two main parties have been haemorrhaging core votes seems, not to put too fine a point on it, somewhat delusional. The comment "There is a potential inconsistency between a politics based on rationality and a core vote based on loyalty and habit." is really telling. Core voters default to their core party through emotional and personal ties. Their parents were Tory so they are. They grew up in a working class area so always vote Labour. Building a core vote to me suggests we attempt to reverse the recent trend (last 60 years) of increasing social mobility, aspiration and decline of the class system, or we instead move into the 21st C where core vote is not what wins you elections, getting valence, messaging and targeting right is.

There is an assertion in the document that the membership spike shows there is a potential core vote out there. Whilst this may be true, the 20% envisioned isn't even close to evidenced by the spike. If this were truly evidence, then the +30,000 new Labour members might suggest a resurgence in Labour core vote, for which I'd suggest there is zero evidence.

We need USPs that define our valence. Prior to 2010 one of the key ones was Human Rights and another protection of personal freedoms. Other issues tend to be 'muddied' or gazumped by other parties (the Greens for Environmental issues for example). I strongly feel valence development is what we should focus on. If that brings a core vote, then so be it, but it could also bring us electoral success, without which we are powerless to actually change anything.

I have a lot of respect for the authors, and there's much to commend many of the objectives in this, but I seriously feel the core presumption of the document is unsound.


Paul


AlexTFish
AlexTFish

This is a really great document. I'd love to see it circulated widely and adopted. It speaks to me as a member for quite a few years but who really doesn't care about local politics much at all. High-profile national campaigns demonstrating open, generous love of strangers (in this country as well as overseas) are exactly what I want to see the party doing. 


I'm interested to see you talk about "taking in both centre and centre-left (and perhaps occasionally left) voters." Why are properly-left-wing people not part of the core vote? It seems to me that a preference for strong welfare, high benefits and other high-redistribution policies will often be driven by the same kind of high concern for human rights and universal provision that drives the "tolerance, openness and internationalism" you focus on. And really, where else is there for the left wing to go at the moment? The Greens are in the ascendant, but left-wing people wanting a more mainstream party will certainly be disappointed by New Labour (Political Compass correctly identified New Labour as significantly further right than the Lib Dems for years, only eventually changing their mind due to the effects of the coalition).

JoeOtten
JoeOtten

It is necessary to question Howarth's assertion that the great bulk of the electorate is on the centre left and that the right only win due to a reputation for competence. If competence includes being careful with public finances, and the electorate value that, this suggests the concept of centre-left is not being applied consistently.


We see that Howarth takes his lead from the evidence of the social attitudes survey, which asks people, do you agree the government should redistribute incomes: Strongly agree - agree - neither agree nor disagree - disagree - strongly disagree.


The problem with this question is that if you think governments should redistribute incomes, but do so rather less than they do at the moment, you might quite reasonably pick any of those five answers. Surely the centre position is that the level of redistribution is at some norm, not that it should or perhaps should not happen at all.

Even then, since redistribution costs money out of the public purse, it has to be judged alongside health, education, transport, foreign aid, defence etc. Ask if you want more redistribution at the expense of one of these, and you will get a different answer.

The other problem with campaigning explicitly on the left, is that you will be more effective against Labour than against the Tories, with the result of letting the Tories in more often. Though this might not be a problem if you are secretly of the centre-right.

Sue Sutherland
Sue Sutherland

I understand your point about redistribution but I think that you are ignoring the fact that if you want to win against the Tories and there is a large split vote going to several parties on the left then you have to persuade more left voters to vote for you leaving you with fewer Tories to convert.

If we are going to decide policy on this basis then we need an analysis of constituencies especially where we are in second place. However, because our backs are against the wall we have the luxury of deciding what we believe in, hopefully with OMOV, and then selling it to the electorate who are bored with politics probably because it has become so dry due to parties just trying to get votes rather than standing for something.

JoeOtten
JoeOtten

@Sue Sutherland  Not sure I follow you. A centre party is a sound tactical vote for a left voter if a left party can't win. A centre party is also an appealing switch vote for a cente-right voter, but a left party isn't. You say "leaving you with fewer Tories to convert" but pitching left actively drives LD-Con switch voters away.


I quite agree about standing for something. It is difficult to stand for something distinctive, or to stand up to the Tories effectively if all you are doing is splitting the left vote even further.

David Howarth
David Howarth

@JoeOtten 

Sorry Joe but this won't wash. If one looks at other questions about left-right economic views, the results are the same, or even more to the left. For example on a question whether private companies running public services had not gone nearly far enough, not far enough, was about right, had gone too far or had gone much too far, the results from the BES are that, of those expressing an opinion (N=14,403), not nearly far enough came out at 1.6%, not far enough 7.9%, about right 22.8%, too far 35.8% and much too far 31.9%. Again the median voter is centre left. Questions about cuts in public services produce similar answers. It's not just about redistribution. It's also about the role of government in the economy. If you want to be where the people are, and in particular where most people are who have liberal social views, you have to be on the centre left. The liberal economic right is an electoral desert.

JoeOtten
JoeOtten

@David Howarth thanks for your reply. Do post a link to the data that I can look at.


I still don't think you've tackled my point head on about a consistent standard of centre-left. The voter who, for example, wants more spending "when we can afford it, which is not now" will count as centre left by your standard but probably votes Conservative, at least this time.


Or you might want better public services and be willing to pay more tax to get them (the tax question generally gets a different answer to the spending question) but believe, with some reason, that Labour governments generally run out of money, and generally increase unemployment, and you might only float over to Labour when those dangers seem to have receded (say under Tony Blair or Liz Kendall). Centre left, in all but voting behaviour. You might argue that this voter has been tricked by the "reputation for competence", but you are in danger of renaming what to the voter is not a judgement on competence, but a belief that left-wing economic policies do more harm than good, which surely casts doubt on your assignment of that voter to the centre-left.


It's not just the liberal economic right which is a desert on your analysis, but the whole of the economic right. Doesn't the election result give you any pause for thought?

David Howarth
David Howarth

@JoeOtten

The data is at http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-objects/panel-study-data/ The paper is based on the Wave 4 and Wave 5 panels, though Wave 6 (post-election) has just been posted and so we might have a clearer view of what happened at the election from that.

On your response, I notice that you have completely ignored the data on privatisation. The central point is that whichever view one takes of what counts as economically 'right', 'centre' and 'left', and whichever question is chosen to measure it, the same picture emerges. It is pointless trying to argue that fact away.

The mistake you are making is to assume that voting Conservative is about nothing but having right wing economic views. For a large section of the Conservative vote, views on other issues, including immigration, patriotism, fairness in the sense of just deserts (which would include crime and benefits) and social issues, are just as important, if not more important, as are questions of trust and competence. Just think about what happened to the Tories in 1997 when they had lost their reputation for competence.

Nadine Storey
Nadine Storey

This really speaks to me. 


As a new member who joined on 8th May, I have been thinking about getting involved with my local party but you could be describing me with the phrase "motivated by an issue rather than an area". As I have moved about geographically in my life, getting involved in something local never quite seemed to motivate me, although I did volunteer in a local Oxfam Campaigns office a number of years ago which was similar to what you describe here - local PR around (inter)national issues.  Certainly I think we could look to NGO's for ideas on how to build a core vote. I think my reticence about getting involved in local politics partly accounts for why I didn't join the LibDem party until now - the difference nowadays is that I can feel much more engaged via social media - becoming part of that community as you put it.


The first LibDem event I have ever attended was this week - the East Mids Hustings. I was pretty shocked by the lack of ethnic diversity in this group despite the LibDems surely having the most inclusive policies and values. I think there must be a clear strand of effort required here to reach out to groups who should find a natural home in the LibDem party.

PeterReisdorf
PeterReisdorf

One thing that I was disappointed it didn't address was the stupid decision a few years ago that any policy that wasn't reviewed/renewed every few years ceased to be policy (I can't remember the time limit, but there is a specific limit).  I'm a motorcyclist (I've never driven a car in my life) and we did have a very good policy on motorcycling, but I think that was back in the 90s.  At the 2015 general election (and I think also at the 2010 general election) a group of motorcycling organisations contacted the Party to find out what our policy was.  A fairly reasonable thing for them to do.  Because we didn't have one someone at the Party HQ had to waste time looking at other policies to see how they affected motorcycling, WITH NO STARTING POINT!  I'm sure the same thing must have happened in lots of other areas.  It's a very basic thing and we took a decision that messed it up completely.  It used to be said that we had policies on everything, now there are lots of things about which we have no policy at all.



The other point I have is about OMOV for the Party Conferences.  I'm not too bothered about it, although I can see problems with Party policy becoming skewed towards the views of people who have the time and money to attend conferences.  One of the members of our local party executive committee is quite unhappy about it.  She was in the SDP and they regularly complained that anyone could turn up at a Liberal Assembly and vote (which wasn't actually true) so she thinks this is a really bad thing.


One final thing, when we started targeting council ward that I eventually won (we're in third place now) I put the first sentence of the preamble to the constitution above the strap line at the bottom of the page, because I thought that was as important as "Service & Action All Year Round".  The next person we had as a candidate (it's a three member ward) insisted I removed it.  In the neighbouring ward they insisted on having nothing but local issues in the Focus leaflets - and I do mean nothing, absolutely nothing. Don't underestimate the opposition to what you're suggesting.

MarkPack
MarkPack moderator

@PeterReisdorf There was certainly a proposal a few years back to introduce a 'use by' date on old policies but that proposal was defeated, so policies don't automatically expire after a set period of time (though of course some get overtaken by events).

pjgoodman
pjgoodman

Hi Mark! I've just read this, and *really* enjoyed it. Fantastic, fresh thinking, with a lot of ideas that resonate very strongly with me - especially your third pillar of national thematic campaigns and how they can be used.


I note in particular your / David's comments about evidence-based campaigning on pp. 7-8, and it's here that I come in with a question that has been bothering me for a few weeks, and which I've tried to resolve via Googling and querying friends on Facebook, but to no effect. I'm hoping that with your knowledge of the relevant research, you might be able to help.


The issue is about a particular sub-set of our campaigning literature - namely material in which we try to hide the fact that it comes from us. The classic example is the 'tabloid' newspaper format which doesn't use the party name in the newspaper title, but from time to time the same approach is also used on individual leaflets - usually pretty nasty attack ones (example: https://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/12488/).


I've found myself instinctively reacting against this type of literature - especially the stuff which is both heavily negative *and* attempts to conceal its source. Whenever I've questioned it, the conventional response I've received has been that it gets through to people who wouldn't normally read leaflets which come straightforwardly from us (or are just sick of them). But my concern is that that benefit is outweighed by a) reduced textual authority caused by having no obvious authorial voice and b) the risk (which from complaints clearly often becomes a reality) that people who realise it *is* from us feel angered and cheated at the attempted deception.


What I really want to know though, and have failed to find out so far, is which of any of those interpretations is backed up by any evidence - and this is where I'm hoping you might be able to help. Is there an evidence base which supports the idea that party literature which attempts to conceal its origins has an overall beneficial, rather than negative, effect - or could this be some of the long-in-the-tooth conventional wisdom which you refer to in the pamphlet?

JonathanBrown1
JonathanBrown1

@pjgoodman Good question.   I've just downloaded the report and not read it yet, so apologies if this is covered, but on a related note, is there any evidence on the effectiveness of 'dodgy' bar charts?


i.e. Those that show the Lib Dem bar and our nearest opponent's bar being very close to each other despite being tens of % points apart in real life, or huge distances between us and the third place bar despite very close % results.


Colleagues at work were clearly put off voting for a neighbouring candidate whose literature used this kind of thing.   I wouldn't be surprised if they did more harm than good!

pjgoodman
pjgoodman

@MarkPack Thanks for answering. So I guess maybe these are some of the things we could try experimenting with a bit to re-test our assumptions.

AlexTFish
AlexTFish

@pjgoodman Yes! If anything is going to put me off leafletting, it'll be having to deliver the deceptive kind of leaflets that pretend to be "just some local paper" with a "special feature" interview with local candidate, and oh look, they happen to be rather positive about the Lib Dems everywhere... Yuck. I'm fortunate enough to have not seen much direct negative content in the local leaflets, but I do find the deceptive ones very off-putting. And I have to think that a lot of the recipients would get annoyed at the deception too (your point b)).

pjgoodman
pjgoodman

@AlexTFish Glad I'm not alone in those feelings, and your comment about it putting you off leafleting raises another issue - that evidence-based campaigning shouldn't just ask the question "Will this have the effect we want on voters?", but also "Will this demoralise activists so much that it drives them away, thus harming our ability to campaign in future?"

Keith Watts
Keith Watts

This is a very good start to the conversation we need to have on this vital topic.

The very specific proposal for a campaigning Deputy Leader gives me a problem; I have voted for a campaigning Leader who fits the authors' job description very well but is unlikely to be the erudite and disciplined parliamentary strategist that we also need in the House of Commons.

Julian Heather
Julian Heather

Oh dear. I had to stop reading when I came across the following:

"That’s why the Liberal Democrats did so badly in 2015. The individual elements of the manifesto were popular with voters – very popular in many cases. But voters didn’t vote on the basis of the sum of the policies and so the party’s spending on understanding the views of voters needs to be based on valence, not lists of policies."


So that's why the Liberal Democrats did so badly in the 2015 General Election, was it ? Nothing to do with going into coalition with the Torie in the first place, nothing to do with the polls continuously showing a hung parliament, which encouraged Soft Labour voters to go to Labour and encouraged Soft Conservative voters to go Conservative, and nothing to do with the fear - ably promoted by the Tories - of the SNP forming a coalition with Labour, which did for us in our Tory-facing seats ?


I trust, Mark, that was David Howarth's contribution, not yours, but I would have expected that it would have been edited out, before publication.


Sorry, but such a ridiculous assertion casts doubts on the rest of the publication.

MarkPack
MarkPack moderator

@Julian Heather I think you may have misunderstood what we meant by "valence" (or the pamphlet isn't clear enough!) as issues such as trust lost from going into coalition are just the sorts of points it covers? It's understanding fear, trust, reputation etc that we need to do - rather than just looking at lists of individual policies.

Tony Hutson
Tony Hutson

@Julian Heather  I share your views on the coalition and the election strategy, so believe me I totally understand where you are coming from. But in dismissing this pamphlet I honestly think you are being a little unfair. If you look back over the blogs of Mark and David you'll see that they are both more than willing to express their opinions on the mistakes of the coalition and the election strategy (Particularly David!). This pamphlet, I think, takes it as read that the party made huge blunders in the coalition and that the election strategy was poor, but it is an attempt to look forward and seek ways of getting us out of that mess. Also, to look at the particular line where you stopped reading, I really don't believe it says what you think it says. (i.e. I don't think it defends the coalition strategy or denies the mistakes made). I really would urge you to go back and read the rest of the pamphlet. There's a lot of good sense here, and I'm really pleased to see such clear strategic thinking about the way forward. We desperately need that. Finally - Mark will correct me if I'm wrong - but pamphlets like this are intended as attempts to start discussion, not as an end point.

Sue Sutherland
Sue Sutherland

This is very interesting indeed and should be distributed to all local parties to discuss as well as to all members. I mention local parties because I think there is a need for the Deputy Leader to have someone at local level who is responsible for this new type of campaigning. It might breath life into local Executives too. Often campaigning is hived off to a group which the individual member is unable to identify. I think local parties should be treated as the grass roots of the national party so that ideas can go up as well as down. If there is a national single issue campaign it's important that this should be given a local interest too so that local media pick it up.

A great example of this, which you omitted in your analysis of the Party's recovery after 1988,is the introduction of the Poll Tax which united centre left and extreme left wing parties. This meant there was a great deal of local and national publicity and in Bath we had hundreds of people at a local Council meeting, spilling out into the street and I'm sure this was repeated in many towns and cities.

PeterDunphy
PeterDunphy

What is essential for the Party is that the 'tolerant centre' and the 'tolerant centre left' accept that there is a legitimate place for the other group in the Party as for sure these numbers demostrate that a Party of one or the other only cannot survive - even under AV or the Party's preferred form of STV. We need to be a broad church and that includes social liberals, social democrats and classical liberals and all should be welcome.

GrahamEvans
GrahamEvans

@PeterDunphy I imagine some would describe me as an economic liberal but as such there is little with which I disagree in this paper. Of course the crunch will come, having establish an attitude in the public's mind as to what the Liberal Democrats stand for, when we actually have to decide policy. As the Labour Party demonstrates, even if you have a broad agreement on values, you can still have radically different views on specific policies.

Trackbacks

  1. […] footnote on what this means for the Liberal Democrats: as I’ve written elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats needs to build a much bigger core vote, and do so by being clear about our bel…. Part of that has to be about winning on valance – showing competence and an ability to […]

  2. […] This result in Aylesbury Vale is another example of both the strength and the limitations of the Lib Dem recovery in council by-elections. The party isn’t withering away in them, and is frequently moving back to be well ahead of Ukip and the Greens. But as with other examples of this trends I’ve covered, this was a very strong second for the Liberal Democrats, rather than a win. Steps in the right direction. More steps to go in 2016. (Hopefully in this direction). […]

  3. […] A more diverse team also, we should note, makes for greater electoral appeal. The electorate likes political parties which look like themselves rather than a group of others. That is particularly important for the Lib Dems given that the chunk of the electorate which shares our values – and so makes for our most fruitful ground fo…. […]

  4. […] That latter includes the latest, slow but steady, progress on one of my long-standing issues – reducing the level of secrecy about the party’s committee meetings and improving the reporting back to members about what is being done in their name. It also raises again the question of whether the Liberal Democrats should have an elected Deputy Leader – something which David Howarth and I put the case for, and provide a remit for the role, in our ‘core votes’ pamphlet. […]

  5. […] As the authors point out, this lack of a core vote to match that of the other parties means the Liberal Democrats are much more vulnerable to politically tough times – a point David Howarth and I wrote about further in our pamphlet on Lib Dem strategy. […]

  6. […] This piece appears with the kind permission of the authors and thanks to the kind help of Krijn van Eeden who both suggested republishing it in English and translated it. I’ve edited it slightly since, so any errors and omissions are mine. For more on how the lessons apply to the UK, see my pamphlet with David Howarth. […]